Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> As for raising the barrier, you can presently submit bug reports to
> pgsql-bugs by either mail or webform. Most of the bug trackers I'm
> aware of are webform-only. I don't consider that a step forward,
> especially since a webform isn't very conducive to making good reports
> (it's hard to attach test cases, for instance).

There are plenty of bug tracking systems that use email extensively. In fact I
think the traditional approach was to be entirely email based. GNATS, the
venerable candidate in this field for example, is entirely email based. But
GNATS kind of sucks.

The Debian system is entirely email controllable, including command messages
to close, reassign, etc. bugs. It depends on people following instructions and
following up to the numeric address it sends you.

RT behaves like a ticketing system where it assigns you a ticket number on the
initial email and then tracks subsequent emails by the subject and other
headers.

I dislike BZ for the way it *forces* you to use the web interface. I prefer
email based systems for the simple reason that I already have a perfectly good
tool for composing text and reading conversations. It alerts me when I get
messages, sorts the messages into folders etc. The last thing I want to do is
have to remember 20 different web sites to check to see if there's any news.
And the last thing I want to do when I have a long detailed explanation of a
problem is try typing into some little bitty box in a web browser with the
pitiful editing features they have.

I also dislike BZ for aesthetic reasons. If one person is editing a ticket
while another person updates the same ticket, it refuses your edits and you
have to start all over. I think all the updates are stored in one big field.

--
greg