On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I have frequently been the agent of change in matters of process, but I see
>> no useful change here, just lots of wasted time. But then why are we even
>> talking about change? What thing is broken that needs to be fixed? Why is
>> adopting a new package a fix for that?
> Fair questions indeed. I think the core points here are:
> 1. We don't have a good process for making sure things don't "slip through
> the cracks". I think everyone more or less relies on Bruce to run through
> his mailbox periodically and nag them about threads that don't seem to
> have been closed off. The deficiencies of that are obvious.
> 2. There's no visibility for outsiders as to what issues are open or
> recently fixed. Not being outsiders, I'm not sure that we are terribly
> well qualified to describe this problem precisely or identify a good
> solution --- but I grant that there's a problem there.
This maybe understates the ability of google to match up problem
scenarios with the relevant fix and commentary. I'm somewhat
skeptical that issue trackers are much of an improvement upon informal
processes. Bruce will simply have to run through a different systems
to do the same amount of nagging he's always done.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: