> 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.

Doesn't bugzilla insist on sending you the complete bug every time? Or
am I confusing it with the gforge/pgfoundry trackers? If so, then it's a
really bad idea, IMHO, since it sends new copies out all the time...

> 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.

Whatever system is used (if one is), there definitly needs to be some
people looking over what comes in on the mailinglists (or on IRC, for
that matter) and pipe it off to the tracker in case it's not already
there. Unless we want to force everybody to use *just* a web interface
(which would be a horrible idea, btw), we won't get 100% coverage.

(btw, istm that people email at least as many bugs directly to -hackers,
or to -general or whatever, because the end user *does not know* when
it's a bug from when it's a misconfiguration, or misunderstanding of the
issue or whatnot)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to