Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:28:53PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 16. August 2006 14:10 schrieb Robert Treat:
Only a small fraction of the new posts on pgsql-bugs are actually bugs. Most
are confused or misdirected users. I don't want to raise that barrier. But
I want a higher barrier before something is recorded in the bug tracking
I'm not sure I follow this, since currently anyone can email the bugs list
or use the bugs -> email form from the website. Are you looking to
increase the barrier for bug reporting?
Well, you need to get some agreement on what the bug tracker is for. Is
a) a front-end to deal with complaints and bugs people have. Is it
something you expect end users to look at? This is how Debian uses its
bug-tracker, to make sure issues people bring up don't get lost. You
can always close the bug if it isn't a real bug.
b) a private bug database only used by -hackers to track known
outstanding bugs and patches.
If you want the latter, the approach would be to keep pgsql-bugs and
when a real issue comes up, bounce it to the bug tracker. Any
subsequent email discussion should then get logged in the bug report.
Have a nice day,
What we are talking about here is bug triage. Weeding out misreports,
duplicates etc. is a prime part of this function. It is essential to the
health of any functioning bug tracking system. All it takes is
resources. Is it worth it? Yes, IMNSHO, but it's a judgement call.
One sensible way to do this would be to have a group of suitably
qualified volunteers who could perform this function on a roster basis,
for, say, a week or a two at a time. That way we could the load off key
personnel like Tom (I am in favor of anything which would reduce the
demands we place on Tom ;-) )
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly