Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume > > > > Lelarge<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit : > >>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history? > >>> That's what the changelog and svn history is for... > >> > >> Yes. I created them to try to use the roadmap system. See this: > >> > >> http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/roadmap > >> and this: > >> > >> http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/query?milestone=1.10.1&order=priority&col= > >>id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=compone > >>nt (which is kind of a changelog and a todo list) > > > > OK, well if you want to start maintaining this, please have a think > > about how we can modify the existing processes to accomodate it. At > > the very least, I would like to avoid the changelog duplication - can > > we drop that file, or auto-create it for example? > > Yes, we should definitely be able to do that. However, I think we > should do *both* for a while just to fill things with some data, so we > can reasonably compare the outcome. yes, it means duplicated work > during that time, but as long as we have the end-goal to drop one of > the two.
Dropping one is not enough. We need to have more. And trac gives us more than just a changelog. So, I agree with Magnus. We should really check that trac works great enough for us before dropping any existing processes. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
