Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal

From: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date: 2004-02-27 14:17:13
Message-ID: 735D404BD9E7EB44B9CDFC27FC88809B01C4D51D@mail2.tmwsystems.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stark [mailto:gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 12:17 AM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal
> 
[...snip...]
> I might suggest again RT. It's open source and has serious commercial
> traction. The postgres port needs a lot of work for it to 
> really catch up to
> the original MySQL implementation so most of the users are 
> using it with
> MySQL. 
> 

A second for considering RT. I've been using RT 3.0.6 for about five months
now for our internal support and (closed-source) bug tracking, and can
report that it works very smoothly with PostgreSQL. I had more problems with
getting all the Perl dependencies lined up than anything else, but that was
mostly my ignorance regarding big Perl apps and Apache.

It also can accept tickets via web or e-mail, so using it would not require
reducing the available methods for submitting bugs.


Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2004-02-27 14:29:17
Subject: Re: bgwriter never dies
Previous:From: ChadDate: 2004-02-27 12:55:36
Subject: API Layers within Postgres

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group