Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ...  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?
> Nope, it just sends the changes/additions.  Other than the lack of a
> direct email input method, I find BZ quite usable.  Josh was just
> complaining that its source code is a mess (dunno, haven't looked)
> but other than that I think it's a definite possibility, just because
> so many people are already familiar with it.

Have you tried to use debbugs?  I agree with Greg Stark that it's a
better fit for our current procedure, while enabling better

For an example, see  There are three links there
pointing to pages on how to use the system.  Entering a bug number shows
detail; for example try entering 330514 which is a PostgreSQL bug.  You
can add more detail to a bug by mailing <bug-number>
You can close a bug by mailing <bug-number>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  You
can of course clone bugs, retarget to a different package, merge bugs,

It's controllable by email -- in fact, I think email is the only
controlling interface.  You can get reports using the web frontend.  You
can get an mbox via HTTP for a particular bug, which you can later open
with your email client if you like.  (And respond to it, etc).

We would have to determine what constitutes a "package" (probably one
for each contrib module, one for each interface, one for the backend,
etc; or we could have separate package for "optimizer", "rewriter",
"transaction system", one for each access method, etc), what "tags"
there are, what "versions", etc.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to