Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> IME many of the bugs that go unanswered are non-bugs (eg #5316)
> or inadequately described (eg #5429)
Agreed.
> If the goal is "make sure nothing important slips through the
> cracks", a tracker could help. If the goal is "100% response rate
> to pgsql-bugs submissions", the only thing that will actually help
> is a lot more people willing to do marginally-useful dogwork.
Actually, if we had has something I could review to easily spot them
as unanswered, I probably would have responded to #5316 long ago.
(I'm not sure whether it makes sense to respond after two and a half
months.) I don't know whether the message fell victim to our
(rather aggressive) spam filters or I initially blew past it for
some reason, but had I been able to review a list of pending issues,
I'm sure I'd have picked it up.
I intentionally skipped #5429 because I thought the description in
the post might mean something to someone familiar with ODBC access
to PostgreSQL. If we had a tracking system, I'd have probably
responded if nobody else did after two or three days, to suggest
another list or request more detail.
I will often hang on to emails to which I don't initially reply, to
remind me to follow up, but I find that clumsy and error-prone, and
I have the disheartening feeling that there are other people doing
exactly the same thing, leading to duplicated (wasted) effort.
I don't think it has to be fancy, but setting up something to track
open issues (linking to the related list archive pages) seems like
a good idea to me.
-Kevin