Re: we don't have a bugzilla

andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Raphaël Jacquot wrote:
>> would seem like a good idea, no ?
>>
>> http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/
>
> Before you come trolling on this (or any other) subject, please read
> the voluminous debates that have taken place about it. Apparently you
> think it's something we have never considered, which in light of the
> product we maintain would be more than remarkable.
>
> Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to
> the discussion.

This seems more than a tad unfair.

Yes, it is certainly fair to observe that there have been voluminous
debates. But it will take a whole lot of "trolling around" in the
archives to figure out the shape of the *conclusions* of those
debates.

Seeming relevant conclusions:

- Yes, there probably ought to be some sort of structured bug tracker.

- HOWEVER, there are many who prefer to use email for their work, as
opposed to being forced into some sort of "webby thing."

- That being said, experimentation is taking place for the
"commitfests" with using a wiki to track statuses of patches and
discussions.

- It is hoped that out of this experimentation, patterns surrounding
what is *truly* needful to structure will emerge. There is reason
to be hopeful about this, as the wiki-based process has been showing
some useful structures to impose already.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
"I find it hard to believe a professional programmer could support the
concept of Open Source." -- David J. Owens <owensdj(at)home(dot)net>