Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kim Bisgaard <kim+pg(at)alleroedderne(dot)adsl(dot)dk>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project
Date: 2011-05-31 10:41:30
Message-ID: BANLkTim8A7hDjrhRgc-8=z3GOfqDF-ikLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:47, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tis, 2011-05-31 at 10:36 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I get the feeling we're approaching this backwards. Wouldn't the
>> normal way to do it be to define the workflow we *want*, and then
>> figure out which bugtracker works for that or requires the least
>> changes for that, rather than to try to figure out which bugtracker we
>> want and then see how much we have to change our workflow to match?
>
> Maybe you are assuming that there is a single workflow that everyone
> wants.  So far we know that most people want to work by email and want
> to know that a bug is closed.  Is there more detail than that that we
> can extract?

Yeah, there might definitely be more than one.

>> So in order to start a brand new bikeshed to paint on, have we even
>> considered a very trivial workflow like letting the bugtracker
>> actually *only* track our existing lists and archives. That would
>> mean:
>>
>> * Mailing lists are *primary*, and the mailing list archives are
>> *primary* (yes, this probably requires a fix to the archives, but that
>> really is a different issue)
>> * New bugs are added by simply saying "this messageid represents a
>> thread that has this bug in it", and all the actual contents are
>> pulled from the archives
>> * On top of this, the bug just tracks metadata - such as open/closed
>> more or less. It does *not* track the actual contents at all.
>> * Bugs registered through the bugs form would of course automatically
>> add such a messageid into the tracker.
>
> Well, that is not a workflow either, it's approaching the issue by
> proposing an implementation.  Nothing says that an existing or new

Um, good point. I still stand by my argument though, even if I'm
arguing against myself :-)

> system doesn't work exactly like that.  I would be concerned about the
> search capabilities of such a system, however.

We already have a search system that works reasonably well for the archives...

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2011-05-31 11:57:19 Re: How can I check the treatment of bug fixes?
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2011-05-31 10:03:06 Re: Fix for GiST penalty