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
> 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]
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?