[HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!

[Thomas Swan]

Tom Lane wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]">

Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote:

5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit
the way we work.
I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products
that we would have.
Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the
core.
Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc.
Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc.

I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same
people that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also
working on the interfaces and languages.

I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all.  I don't think
the project is large enough to require it (we are in no danger of
becoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon).  But more importantly,
subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- and
in my experience the initial reporter of a bug *very* frequently
misidentifies where the problem is.  So unless additional effort is
expended to reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), the
classification will degenerate to the point of being a hindrance rather
than a help in locating things.  Overall I just don't see that much
benefit from a classification system.

Bugzilla does provide for the reclassification bugs.  I have misidentified where bugs were in Mozilla and have had them reclassified into different areas/components of that project.