From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)is(dot)rice(dot)edu>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: BugTracker (Was: Re: 8.2 features status) |
Date: | 2006-08-19 17:44:52 |
Message-ID: | 44E74E14.1040902@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>
>> I'm listed on various mozilla bugs and occasionally get notifications of
>> updates but I can't reply to those notifications and I'm not about to fire up
>> a browser and log in and search for the bug just to add comments.
>>
>
> It's really not that painful: every email bugzilla sends includes the
> URL of the bug page. It's one click to visit the page, assuming your
> mail and web tools are well enough integrated that you can readily visit
> a URL given in text email. (If not, consider joining the 21st century
> ;-))
>
> I think actually the weak spot of bugzilla for our purposes will be the
> problem of transferring original email reports into BZ entries. The
> volunteer(s) who do that work are probably going to want a tool better
> adapted to that purpose than the standard BZ bug entry page ... but
> we'll likely want to do some customization work on our BZ anyway, so
> I don't see that as a fatal objection.
>
> The bottom line here is that there will not be any tool that is perfect
> for our purposes out-of-the-box. Well, it's all open source, we can
> scratch our own itch. What we need more than any specific tool is a
> commitment from someone to put effort into adapting the tool to our
> needs.
>
> (Given that reality, the quality of the tool's existing source code
> needs to figure strongly in our decision. If BZ is still as ugly
> as Josh remembers it being, that'd be a strike against it.)
>
>
>
It is a heck of a lot better then it was. For example, presentation
logic is largely factored out and handed off to TT templates. Personally
I'd like to see the SQL factored out too, but Bugzilla is hardly unique
in having SQL littered across the code. Honestly, this is not your
father's bugzilla. BTW, Josh's memory is of the 1.x series. The 2.x
series is now at 2.22. The code has move a very long way.
There are also tools for email interaction, although they might need to
be beefed up for the likes of some 20th century dwellers :-)
I will check about Greg's complaint about race conditions in updating
comments. My initial impression is that this is no longer so, but I will
get a definite answer.
We certainly have enough perl-heads on our community that we can surely
make it do what we want with little difficulty.
Oh, it can also import some XML too. The DTD is in the source.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-19 18:19:58 | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-19 17:24:10 | Re: BugTracker (Was: Re: 8.2 features status) |