From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug tracker tool we need |
Date: | 2012-07-07 02:13:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaSPqT3Dt25J3o9FHxSRgBvQ=_F3E_5mkchcP7RVHsNBA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I do basically agree with this. I was reflecting on the bug tracker
> issue (or lack thereof) for unrelated reasons earlier today and I
> think there are some very nice things to recommend the current
> email-based system, which are the reasons you identify above. Perhaps
> the area where it falls down is structured searches (such as for
> "closed" or "wontfix") and tracking progress of related, complex, or
> multi-part issues that span multiple root email messages.
>
> Maybe just using the message-ids to cross reference things (or at
> least morally: perhaps a point of indirection as to collapse multiple
> bug reports about the same thing, or to provide a place to add more
> annotation would be good, not unlike the CommitFest web application in
> relation to emails) is enough. Basically, perhaps an overlay
> on-top-of email might be a more supple way to figure out what process
> improvements work well without committing to a whole new tool chain
> and workflow all at once.
+1. This is almost word-for-word how I feel about it myself.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2012-07-07 03:53:12 | Allow replacement of bloated primary key indexes without foreign key rebuilds |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-07-07 01:33:27 | Re: Bug tracker tool we need |