| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
| Date: | 2004-02-26 23:20:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200402270020.37548.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-www |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> The question is, do we need BZ right off or should we try GForge's
> lightweight tool first? Personally I find that BZ is a little
> intimidating to new users, particularly for searching on issues; as a
> result it tends to lead to a lot of duplicate filings.
I think we had previously decided that we will not allow a random user
off the street to file bug reports into whatever system we end up
using. I see it primarily as a bug *tracking* system, not a bug
*reporting* system.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-26 23:57:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
| Previous Message | David Costa | 2004-02-26 22:56:45 | Re: [pgsql-www] Why not fork PHP.NET |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-26 23:57:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
| Previous Message | David Costa | 2004-02-26 22:56:45 | Re: [pgsql-www] Why not fork PHP.NET |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-26 23:57:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
| Previous Message | David Costa | 2004-02-26 22:56:45 | Re: [pgsql-www] Why not fork PHP.NET |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-26 23:57:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
| Previous Message | David Costa | 2004-02-26 22:58:30 | Re: Upgraded Site..any news ? |