Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce, all,

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
automated manner.

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on pgsql-patches or pgsql-bugs without ever touching the tracker tool, then the tracker tool will be permanently out of date and useless.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:
PostgreSQL Replication:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to