On 09/23/2015 11:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > If somebody does do the work, then we get to the next question: if we > had an accurate list of open bugs, would anybody who currently doesn't > work on fixing those bugs step up to help fix them? I hope so, but I > don't know. If not, we might not feel that the effort of maintaining > the bug tracker paid much of a dividend.
I don't anticipate that getting additional bug fixers would be a benefit of having a bug tracker, at least not in the first year. In fact, I would say that we don't need a bug tracker to fix most significant bugs at all. We're pretty good at that. What we need a bug tracker for is: 1. so users and downstream projects know where to report bugs (and no, our idiosyncratic bug form doesn't fit into anyone's workflow). 2. so that users know when a bug is fixed, and what release it's fixed in, rather than depending on "ask someone on IRC". 3. so that we don't completely lose track of low-importance, hard-to-fix bugs and trivial bugs, which we currently certainly do. 4. so that we can have a clearer idea more immediately that we've fixed all known bugs in upcoming postgresql releases, instead of depending on Bruce catching up on his email. 5. so that we have a place to track bugs which require hard, multi-step fixes and don't lose track of some of the steps like we did with Multixact. Those are the main reasons to have a BT. Offering a place for new hackers to get started with trivial code fixes might be a side benefit, but isn't a good enough reason to have one. Obviously, everything said about "who's going to maintain this" is completely valid. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
