Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh, so the bug is tracked by being part of the email reply list. That > is a good idea. Now, how does that get assigned for non-bugs, like > patches? Does any email sent to the lists that doesn't already have a > bug number get one? That might be really valuable.
*Any* email? I hope not ... otherwise it's hard to see what you've got that you don't get with a full-text search on a mailing list archive. AFAICS the bottom line here is that we need some intelligent filtering. In the short run I doubt that we can have that except through human gruntwork to filter the mail traffic and update a tracker database. Maybe after we see such a system in operation for awhile, we can start to automate some obvious bits. But if we start with the assumption that it's going to be mostly automated on day zero, I predict a resounding failure. It strikes me that the CERT CVE database might be a useful analogy. AFAIK there is little or no automated entry into that database --- every change has a human reviewer in front. Of course, they have some darn good security reasons for wanting strong filters in front of their database, but still it's a case worth thinking about. They have the same problem of pulling status information from a lot of not-very- well-standardized input sources. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match