Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Let me mention some of the reasons we as a project could use a bug > tracker which have nothing to do with actually fixing bugs. > > (1) Testing: a bug tracker could be used for beta testing instead of the > ad-hoc system I'm writing. Assuming it has the right features, of course. > > (2) User information: right now, if a user has an issue, it's very very > hard for them to answer the question "Has this already been reported > and/or fixed in a later release." This is a strong source of > frustration for business users who don't actively participate in the > community, a complaint I have heard multiple times.
Also, bug reporters frequently don't get any email feedback on when their bug was fixed. It is also hard to identify what major/minor release fixed a specific bug, especially if the bug was rare. > Where *fixing* bugs is concerned, I'm concerned that a bug tracker would > actually slow things down. I'm dubious about our ability to mobilize > volunteers for anything other than bug triage, and the fact that we > *don't* triage is an advantage in bug report responsiveness (I have > "unconfirmed" bugs for Thunderbird which have been pending for 3 years). > So I'm skeptical about bug trackers on that score. Yes, I agree. Too many bug systems are just a dumping-pile for bugs. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
