On 2011-05-30 4:31 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On sön, 2011-05-29 at 18:36 -0400, Joe Abbate wrote:
> > I've summarizes the main points made in the recent discussion and did
> > some minor additional research on the lists suggested by Peter and
> > Chris Browne. Anyone interested in the tracker, please visit
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TrackerDiscussion and add your
> > feedback/input.
> Based on that, and past discussions, and things we've tried in the past,
> and gut feeling, and so on, it looks like Request Tracker would appear
> to be the next best thing to consider trying out. What do people think
> about that?
My suspicion is that RT may be rather a lot heavier weight in terms of how
it would have to affect process than people would be happy with.
What has been pretty clearly expressed is that various of the developers
prefer for the mailing lists and archives thereof to be the primary data
source and the "venue" for bug discussions.
RT, and Bugzilla, and pretty well the bulk of the issue trackers out there
are designed to themselves be the "venue" for discussions, and that's not
consistent with the preference for email discussions.
There are Debian packages for RT 3.8, and I imagine it may be worth tossing
an instance, but I'd definitely commend trying to minimize the amount of
deployment effort done, as I think there's a fair chance that a number of
devs (I'll pick on Greg Stark :-)) are liable to rebel against it. It'd be
interesting to see the reactions to the interaction between RT, -hackers,
and -bugs for a bug or three...
I'd be more optimistic that debbugs, or an adaption thereof, might more
nearly fit into the workflow.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-05-31 01:52:38|
|Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-05-30 23:57:44|
|Subject: Please test peer (socket ident) auth on *BSD|