Josh Berkus wrote:
No, my point is that 100% information is already available by looking at
email archives. What we need is a short description of where we are on
each patch --- that is a manual process, not something that can be
Tom has posted it --- tell me how we will get such a list in an
Several of us have already suggested a method. If we want the information to
be up-to-date, then the patch manager, or bug tracker, needs to be a required
part of the approval & application process, NOT an optional accessory. That
is, if patches & bug fixes can come in, get modified, get approved & applied
entirely on pgsql-patches or pgsql-bugs without ever touching the tracker
tool, then the tracker tool will be permanently out of date and useless.
It's going to require the people who are doing the majority of the bug hunting
& patch review to change the way they work, with the idea that any extra time
associated with the new tool will be offset by being able to spread the work
more and having information easy to find later, for you as well as others.
Tom seems to be willing; are you?
Well according to himself the last time this came up:
No, he isn't.
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend