"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't know if we ever came up with one, but I know that the big "deal > killer" for a bug tracker is that a lot of hackers don't want to be > forced to use a web interface instead of email. So basically, to be > accepted, a bug tracker would have to have an effective email interface; > one that allowed for updates to an issue coming in via email. Sadly, I > don't think such an animal exists.
That was the position that several of us took five-or-six years ago when the issue first came up ;-) These days I doubt there's anyone around the project who refuses to use a web browser at all. However, I still personally find it much more convenient to read and respond to mailing-list postings than to have to go and visit random web pages to find out if there's something I need to know about. So my current take on this would be that the bug tracker would have to have a reasonable "output" email capability, but I'd not necessarily insist on being able to "input" to it by mail. Red Hat's present bugzilla system could be described that way --- and while I can't say I'm in love with it, I can deal with it. Now the other side of the coin is that people are used to being able to email problem reports to pgsql-bugs, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. If you don't mind having a bug tracker that is clueless about some fair-size fraction of what is going on, then you can set up a system that is impervious to email input. Just don't expect people to trust it very far. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq