| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
| Date: | 2008-04-11 17:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 47FFA682.9040109@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> As an aside, you've reminded me about another thing that bothers me about
> Bugzilla and RT. In both cases they seem to put a lot of focus around the idea
> of "searching" bugs. I don't really get why.
>
> Maybe it makes sense if you plan to be like Mozilla and have 8-year-old bugs
> that nobody ever sees let alone updates, but surely that isn't the goal.
>
>
>
No, there are several perfectly good reasons. It seems unlikely that you
have never actually used bugzilla in earnest or you would not have made
this comment.
First, there are reports that get marked "not a bug". If somebody has
found some behaviour that might be a bug, then being able to search for
similar reports in the past and see the response is very valuable (and
saves developers from having to give the same answer over and over)
Second, the system is used to track features as well as things that are
strictly bugs. So, for example, you can find the response to a previous
feature request.
A list of open feature requests in effect gives you a TODO list for nothing.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-11 17:57:48 | Re: Cached Query Plans |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-04-11 17:55:32 | Re: Remove lossy-operator RECHECK flag? |