Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Kim Bisgaard <kim+pg@alleroedderne.adsl.dk>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Joe Abbate <jma@freedomcircle.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-05-31T10:41:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:47, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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/