Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >So in a roundabout way we come back
> >to the idea that we need a bug tracker (NOT a patch tracker), plus
> >people putting in the effort to make sure it stays a valid source
> >of up-to-date info. Without the latter it won't really be useful.
> Hallelujah Brother!
> BTW, a bug tracker can be used as a patch tracker, although the reverse
> isn't true. For example, the BZ people use BZ that way, in fact - most
> patches arrive as attachments to bugs. And trackers can be used just as
> well for tracking features as well as bugs.
The pidgin (previously known as Gaim) guys also use it that way. They
add a bug for each thing they want to change, even new features, and
track the patches in there. Then they have a list of issues that should
be solved for each release, so it's easy to see which ones are still
missing using their Trac interface.
So the status email that Tom sent yesterday would be a very simple thing
to generate, just looking at the "bugs to fix" page.
I'm not saying we should use Trac, mainly because I hate how it
(doesn't) interact with email. But it does say that a bug tracker can
be useful to us.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster