On May 7, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
And you describe current processes based on email communication. But if we setup some tracker some process will be changed. I think first step is determine what we really want and after we can discuss how to reach it.

If we lived in an ideal world I'd agree with you 100%. But we live in PostgreSQL-community-world. :) There is a *lot* of resistance in the development community to going to any kind of a tracker, even if it would mean essentially zero change to how the development has to work. If you don't believe me go look in the archives; I believe this debate happens about twice a year, and every time the result is the same: lots of emails, zero change.

Create own tracker is reinvent a wheel and waste a time. There are a lot of trackers and I believe that one of them fit postgres requirements. I agree with your idea to try one and if it will be necessary we can add some functionality. But I think that there are not clear requirements and I also afraid that there is not unified view of core team on this.

Yes, when it comes to doing a full-blown tracker it would be a huge amount of wheel reinvention. But that's not the case with a simple patch tracker.

Let's take the baby step of a patch tracker first and see what we learn from it.
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to