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]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to