Re: New idea for patch tracking

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I will say publicly what I have said to others privately. Forgive me if
> I'm a bit blunter than usual. I do not see any value in this at all.
> What we need to track are problems to be solved, be they bugs or
> features, not particular patches. Tracking patches simply comes too late
> in the process.
>
> I think that your attitude to the use of bug/feature trackers is quite
> unreasonable, and certainly in opposition to what seems to be the
> majority opinion among developers. It's a great pity that you are so
> utterly resistant to use of tracking software. The only reason that this
> system, at best a half measure in almost everyone's eyes, is being
> proposed, as far as I can see, is that you will not agree to use
> anything else.
>
> So if this goes ahead and proves to be of little value, I hope that you
> will relent and agree the use of proper tracking software like almost
> every other open source project uses. It really is time that PostgreSQL
> managed to advance beyond thinking that email lists are the greatest
> management tool since sliced bread. It's just indefensible in 2007.

As I said before, I am involved in patches only when a patch isn't
addressed. If a new system works, I will have nothing to do, which is
good.

If you want me to believe it will work better than what we do now, I
can't. Prove me wrong. Forget about what I think. Do something and
stop talking about it.

What I am not going to do is to do 2x more work and get 2% more help,
which is what I fear.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +