From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |
Date: | 2011-05-31 08:10:48 |
Message-ID: | 1306829448.6396.5.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2011-05-30 at 20:16 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> 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.
> I'd be more optimistic that debbugs, or an adaption thereof, might
> more nearly fit into the workflow.
Any bug tracker that has an adequate email interface will be isomorphic
in terms of how intrusive it is.
So I think your argument above is merely a reflection of how people have
traditionally used these systems, not how they have to be used.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-05-31 08:12:43 | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-05-31 08:06:57 | Re: Fix for GiST penalty |