| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, J B <jbwellsiv(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |
| Date: | 2005-10-11 02:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | 8250.1128996626@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I have thought about that, however I would at least at some level want a
> blessing. For example, if we did that would we do it with
> pgFoundry bug tracking? Or would we use Trac? Or Bugzilla?
I think the main thing that's killed previous proposals in this line
is that we could never get a consensus on which bug tracker to use.
Personally I'd be OK with Bugzilla, since I use it at Red Hat already,
but I know that some hate it violently.
There are also a set of issues involved in integrating any such project
with the pgsql-bugs list, which in the estimation of many of us is not
broken and does not need fixing.
Old-timers will recall that we already had one bad experience with an
early open-source bug tracker, which has left people a bit shy of the
concept too. I think a large part of that had to do with confusion
between the purposes of bug *reporting* and bug *tracking*. A mailing
list does very well for reporting issues that might be bugs, but not so
well for tracking the status of acknowledged bugs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Premsun Choltanwanich | 2005-10-11 02:12:51 | Re: How to delete Large Object from Database? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-10-11 01:28:29 | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |