On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, 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 4:36 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> * 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.
>> That's pretty much exactly what I think would be most useful.
> 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
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2011-05-31 15:14:30|
|Subject: Re: pgpool versus sequences|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-05-31 15:13:13|
|Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project|