Re: 9.2beta web issues

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 9.2beta web issues
Date: 2012-07-05 21:44:10
Message-ID: CABUevEybVA7dEeBUekoinBpLn40jWjhYHdhzPJj=f-p1ZYPRgg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> IIRC we don't normally add this, because we don't want to "assign
>> bugs" to things in beta. Also IIRC, didn't Berkus set up a whole
>> separate list that people are supposed to report beta bugs on?
>
> Geez, I sure hope not, because if there is one I am not subscribed to it
> (AFAIK), and I bet few other hackers are either. In any case, it's the
> height of folly to imagine that people won't try to use the bug report
> form for beta bugs.

In that case, I definitely suggest we retire it. It's listed on both
http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/ and in the archives, and is
labeled as the one where to post such reports... I think the idea was
that Josh was going to somehow "filter" the reports before putting
them on -bugs, making sure they were proper, etc. And that the list
would also take *positive* test results, which we definitely don't
want listed as bugs. But I'm definitely +1 for getting rid of the
distinction.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-07-05 21:49:50 Re: 9.2beta web issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-07-05 21:41:28 Re: 9.2beta web issues