Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Yes, I was thinking any email. +50% of features/bugs/patches don't come in via the bug form. If we don't capture everything, will it be useful? > 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. Oh, lots of grunt work. I can see that working, but at a high cost. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
