Tom Lane said: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> C. BZ does not have any PG support in its default branch, and the RH >> port is currently unmaintained. > > I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ > maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of people who > regularly use bugzilla.redhat.com. > > If you want to reject BZ because you don't like it, fine, but please > don't allege that it's unmaintained or that we'd have to put our own > resources into maintaining it. There *will* be BZ-on-PG running at Red > Hat for the foreseeable future. Obviously Dave would like to get the > port folded back upstream, and it looks like that will happen > eventually, but we need not fear being alone in running BZ-on-PG > meanwhile. >
*nod* The RH port is a few minor versions behind the mainline BZ project. I suspect that reasonable Pg support is not too far away in the mainline code. Dave Lawrence is in fact working actively on that, as I saw from a flurry of email just the other day. There seems to me to be sufficient resistance to BZ on other grounds to make the matter moot. Personally, I have long learned to live with its quirkiness and the klunky interface, and I don't find the lack of an email interface an issue, but it is clear that others have much graver objections on these and other grounds. cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
