On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I kinda wonder why the CF app doesn't work like that, actually.
>>> (Yeah, I know the poor thread linking in the archives is an issue.)
>> I thought this pretty much WAS how the CF app works, except that it's
>> for patches rather than bugs. Perhaps it could be extended to also
>> track bugs...
> Well, the point is you have to go and manually fool around with the web
> interface to enter something into CF, rather than just cc'ing it on your
> patch or review email.
Oh, I see. Well, that could probably be changed. One thing to think
about with the current system is that typically only the most relevant
links get added, as opposed to the entire thread. Now, the bad news
is that means things often don't get added at all. The good news is
that typically when people do update it, the add only the relevant
things, thus avoiding filling it up with a massive amount of crap. I
don't know whether that works out to a bug or a feature.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Abbate||Date: 2011-05-31 16:09:27|
|Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2011-05-31 16:04:07|
|Subject: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID|