| From: | J B <jbwellsiv(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |
| Date: | 2005-10-11 08:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | bf637a8b0510110128h32ad84earbc51197b67800d83@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/10/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
This "tracking" feature is crucial for us. We're working towards a
large scale deployment of PostgreSQL across our enterprise, but not
having an easy way to get the status of all reported bugs against our
particular version isn't very comforting. Having a bug tracker in
place would make life much easier, and my advocacy job much less
trying.
I sincerely hope the team will consider using one...bugtraq is fine,
so is trac...just as long as one is in place.
Thanks,
JB
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paresh Bafna | 2005-10-11 08:54:23 | Multi-relation/column keyword indices |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-11 08:27:04 | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |