Tom Lane wrote:
>Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote:
>>>5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit
>>>the way we work.
>>>I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products
>>>that we would have.
>>>Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the
>>>Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc.
>>>Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc.
>>I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same
>>people that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also
>>working on the interfaces and languages.
>I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all. I don't think
>the project is large enough to require it (we are in no danger of
>becoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon). But more importantly,
>subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- and
>in my experience the initial reporter of a bug *very* frequently
>misidentifies where the problem is. So unless additional effort is
>expended to reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), the
>classification will degenerate to the point of being a hindrance rather
>than a help in locating things. Overall I just don't see that much
>benefit from a classification system.
Bugzilla does provide for the reclassification bugs. I have
misidentified where bugs were in Mozilla and have had them reclassified
into different areas/components of that project.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2001-08-29 10:04:30|
|Subject: Re: bytea escaping|
|Previous:||From: Markus Wagner||Date: 2001-08-29 09:15:08|
|Subject: getting the oid for a new tuple in a BEFORE trigger|