| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bugs and bug tracking |
| Date: | 2015-10-07 10:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YGCrfcM4mQ9Zw9afVqz2ZsN1pBHubJ+DC92kNJOBnptyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 October 2015 at 02:33, Nathan Wagner <nw+pg(at)hydaspes(dot)if(dot)org> wrote:
> I think even with a bug tracker the default "ignore" behavior can still
> be done. In principle, we could even mark bugs as "unconfirmed" or
> "logged" or something right away and only mark them as new or open or
> something if they actually draw a reply.
IMO it'd need to be a reply with a keyword or something, because if
you look at the bug history, a whole lot of bugs get replies of "what
version is this anyway? And what exact steps did you take?". Then
trail off as the submitter doesn't respond, or sends more
unintelligible gibberish.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Filip Rembiałkowski | 2015-10-07 11:44:39 | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-10-07 10:06:35 | Re: btreecheck extension |