On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 04:30:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> That would be the key part, wouldn't it?  Nice that you have [code to
> store and parse email messages].

Yeah.  It actually made most of the work pretty easy.  It's available
with a bunch of other code at https://pd.if.org/git/ if anyone wants it.
I did find a bug in my header processing though, so I'll need to commit
that fix.

> We'd also want a way to link a bug fix to a commit, and probably a way
> to give the bug a list of searchable keywords (and add to that list).

I've been thinking of hooking it up to the fti machinery and providing
a search box.  I've never really used fti before, so this might be a
good opportunity to learn it for real.

> > it probably makes sense to just close up front bugs that are marked
> > against unsupported pg versions, or haven't had any activity for too
> > long, perhaps two years.
> I'm reluctant to close all of those unexamined, since part of the
> purpose of this is to find bugs which were never fixed.  Probably we
> should organize a posse to comb trhough all of the old bugs and
> hand-close them.

I'm doing some of that as I poke at the bugs pages.  Perhaps it would
make sense to have a closed status of 'stale' or the like (perhaps
that's what you meant by 'timed out') which could be used to get bugs
out of the main list but still be marked as 'not human reviewed'.  These
could then be reviewed by the posse.

> Yeah, fixing this [email's without a bug id] would probably be tied to
> the possible change to mailman.  Unless someone already has a way to
> get majordomo to append a bug ID.

How are bug ids assigned now?  From the evidence, I assume there is a
sequence in a database that the web submission form queries to format a
resulting email to the bugs mailing list.  Do the mailing lists live on
the same server?  If so, perhaps it would be easy to assign a new bug id
to a new thread on -bugs.  But perhaps that's too aggressive in creating

> > 5: How can we use email to update the status of a bug?
> > 
> > I suggest using email headers to do this.  'X-PGBug-Fixed:
> > <commitid>' and the like.  I assume here that everyone who might
> > want to do such a thing uses an MUA that would allow this, and they
> > know how.
> I guess that depends on who we expect to use this, at least for
> closing stuff.

I could certainly support more than one mechanism.  A web interface for
those who would prefer such and emails would seem to be the basic

> > 6: Does there need to be any security on updating the status?
> > 
> > Probably not.  I don't think it's the sort of thing that would
> > attract malicious adjustments.  If I'm wrong, I'd need to rethink
> > this.  I realize I'm making security an afterthought, which makes my
> > teeth itch, but I think layers of security would make it much less
> > likely to be actually adopted.
> I think there needs to be some kind of administrative access which
> allows, for example, an issue to be closed so that it can't be
> reopened.

I guess technically we have that now since I'm the only one who can
close or open a bug in the db I've set up :)

Seriously though, I think it probably makes the most sense to tie the
system in with the existing pg community accounts if it goes that far.

> Anyway, I'm not convinced we want to reinvent this particular wheel, but
> if we do, you've done a yeoman's job.

Thank you.  (Assuming I've interpreted the phrase correctly, I'm not
familiar with it, and a web search was only semi-enlightening).


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to