David Ford wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Peter remarked that he wouldn't use a bug database unless it has some
> >input filtering to remove all the non-bug issues that currently clutter
> >the pgsql-bug archives.
So the first thing to decide is the purpose of the bug database, do we
want
to
Tom Lane wrote:
>>The last worthwhile item on this guy's list is changing ownership of a
>>database. Well, I haven't yet had to do this: can we do this easily?
>>
>It could be better. See recent "Multiple Servers" thread over in
>pg-admin, notably
>http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=
Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter remarked that he wouldn't use a bug database unless it has some
>input filtering to remove all the non-bug issues that currently clutter
>the pgsql-bug archives. I tend to agree with him. A possible way to
>handle that is to set up bug-input like a closed mailing list: on
David Ford wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >>>That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
> >>>database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
> >>>want that.
> >>>
>
> I'd very much like a bugzilla because I can do research on bugs past or
> pr
Tom Lane wrote:
>Given a threaded index, you aren't wading through "a few hundred posts".
>Agreed, a nice canned database entry might be easier to look at, but
>who's going to expend the time to maintain the database? Unless someone
>actively takes responsibility for keeping the DB up to date, i
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>How do you communicate that to people looking at the content? Do you
>put in big letters at the top, "This list is not complete." The fact an
>items is missing from the list (new bug) is just as important as an item
>appearing on the list.
>
How do you distinguish that fr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>OK, what value does a bug database have over a TODO list?
>
history of a bug, entire discussion about that bug on the same page with
hyperlinked patches and other attachments.
ability of everyone to add to the bug documentation without submitting
it to the TODO maintainer
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
>Maybe a better solution for the short run would be
>return the page where it was, and but links to the pgsql-bugs and
>pgsql-hackers archives with some sort of exmplanatory saying that "this is
>a *complete* (it must be complete of course) list of bugs, which are
>being e
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
>>>database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
>>>want that.
>>>
I'd very much like a bugzilla because I can do research on bugs past or
present now as well as know the status o
I vote for pgsql bugzilla. If I have a bug to report I'll file it. I
file plenty of moz bugs and aid in resolving them.
-d
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>There are over 400 in the database. If that's a small percentage then
>>so be it, but it's still over 400 bugs that appear to have been ignored.
Honestly I wasn't aware postgres had any bugs... tongue in cheek.
What I mean is PG works very nicely for me and I haven't had any
problems with it, so that means "no bugs". Yes there are bugs and
things to be solved, but from my perspective it is already a pretty darn
good piece of software
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Egads! An Internet where people don't remember Kibo...
Yup, I do. I think he gave up years ago, though.
I useta be a small-time kibozer myself --- back in the early days of
JPEG, when a lot of people didn't really understand the format, I had
a little p
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 17:51, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient,
> > We need someone willing to be a kibo. Or is that too arcane a reference?
> Gotta admit, I haven't heard that in a while.
Egads! An Internet whe
> > > > > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a
partial
> > > > > list.
> > > but there wasn't enough interest for someone to take on
> > > the maintenance.
> >
> > We need someone willing to be a kibo. Or is that too arcane a reference?
>
> Gotta admit, I haven't heard t
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Can someone point me to a bug that is _not_ on the TODO list?
>
> Just looking through pgsql-bugs of the last two weeks, the following all
> look reasonable.
>
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-bugs/2001-08/msg00088.html
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/mh
> I see no evidence that this guy wants to learn about or contribute to
> Postgres development at all; he's just looking for things to rag on.
> (And not even doing very well at that --- I could name ten worse
> problems than these without taking a breath...) The TODO list is
> mentioned prominen
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Can someone point me to a bug that is _not_ on the TODO list?
Just looking through pgsql-bugs of the last two weeks, the following all
look reasonable.
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-bugs/2001-08/msg00088.html
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-bugs/2
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial
> > > > list.
> > but there wasn't enough interest for someone to take on
> > the maintenance.
>
> We need someone willing to be a kibo. Or is that too arcane a reference?
Gotta
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's look at the guy's bulleted list.
> The first item he can't stand is that you can't add a column after any
> arbitrary column, that it goes at the end. Well, this is really
> clueless, as you order the columns when you SELECT or when the
> applicatio
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> What who thinks of what has actually become irrelevant. The following
> is clear:
>
> o No tool will replace the mailing lists
> o The mailing lists are where discussion will be held
> o Many/most maintainers have no desire to update bug report
> > > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial
> > > list.
> but there wasn't enough interest for someone to take on
> the maintenance.
We need someone willing to be a kibo. Or is that too arcane a reference?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
-
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with
> > > that ID should also mark it off.
> That would be pretty cool, using the mailing list archives as an
> _answer_ to the
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 11:06, Mitch Vincent wrote:
> Some people crack me up in their opinions.. If it took him 6 hours to
> figure out "int8" then I'm not really interested in anything else he has to
> say... Lord...
Hmmm...
Let's look at the guy's bulleted list.
The first item he can't sta
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The project is outgrowing its infrastructure.
Perhaps so. I think what's *really* needed here is someone who is
willing to take responsibility for maintaining a bug database, ie,
removing cruft (non-bug messages), making sure that old bugs are
ma
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
[...]
>
> What who thinks of what has actually become irrelevant. The following
> is clear:
>
> o No tool will replace the mailing lists
> o The mailing lists are where discussion will be held
> o Many/most maintainers have no desire to
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
> ID should also mark it off.
Oh? I've never seen a bug ID. Certainly the traffic in pgsql-bugs
doesn't show any such thing.
This isn't going to happen unless there's some fairly
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, what value does a bug database have over a TODO list?
A TODO list is forward-looking. Many of the entries in a bug database
would be backward-looking (already fixed). We shouldn't try to make
either one serve the purpose of the other.
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 11:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, what value does a bug database have over a TODO list?
The TODO list isn't just a list of bugs that need fixing.
A bug database is just that -- a list of bugs in existing features. While
Requests of Enhancements certainly can be accomo
> Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
> > ID should also mark it off.
>
> Oh? I've never seen a bug ID. Certainly the traffic in pgsql-bugs
> doesn't show any such thing.
>
> This isn't going to happen unless the
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We could try going the other way, attaching URL's to the TODO items so
> people can get more information about an existing bug.
That might be worth doing, but I think it's mostly orthogonal to the
question of a bug database. The set of problems that ar
> How about we trial it, but with the understanding that bugs we fix will
> be marked as such?
>
> After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
> ID should also mark it off.
>
> Looking at the present situation, it seems we began a good idea, but
> never really follow
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 11:59, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Red Hat makes mission-critical use of bugzilla running on Oracle. See
> > bugzilla.redhat.com. And ask the Red Hat people on these lists their
> > opinions of bugzilla.
> What who thinks of what
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 09:51:29AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > >It's up to the group to decide. If we have a database of bugs, I think
> > >it has to be complete. I think a partial list is worse than no list at
> > >all.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will onl
> Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Some of the discussions could go on for weeks. Are you saying that
> > wading thru a few hundred posts to find out what a solution was is
> > better than a quick searchable summary?
>
> Given a threaded index, you aren't wading through "a few hun
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, but we have to add items that don't come in through the database,
> > > and mark them as done/duplicates if we want it to be useful.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If someone discovers one that's not in the database
> > they'll add it. If it's alre
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Can someone point me to a bug that is _not_ on the TODO list? If not,
> > > what does a complete bug database do for us except list reported bugs
> > > and possible workarounds.
> >
> > Do you actually expect someone to go thru the 400+ items in th
> > > Do you actually expect someone to go thru the 400+ items in the database
> > > and compare them to the TODO list? Seems to me that's something the
> > > maintainer of the TODO list would be doing. Can you point me to the form
> > > that gets something on the TODO list that the average us
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, but we have to add items that don't come in through the database,
> > > and mark them as done/duplicates if we want it to be useful.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If someone discovers one that's not in the database
> > they'll add it. If it's alre
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of the discussions could go on for weeks. Are you saying that
> wading thru a few hundred posts to find out what a solution was is
> better than a quick searchable summary?
Given a threaded index, you aren't wading through "a few hundred posts".
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:48 AM
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Not only does it show the problems he had with PostgreSQL, he uses our
> > > bug list as an example of how PostgreSQL isn't
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2001 11:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, what value does a bug database have over a TODO list?
>
> The TODO list isn't just a list of bugs that need fixing.
>
> A bug database is just that -- a list of bugs in existing features. While
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, what value does a bug database have over a TODO list?
The former is a database, the latter is a flat-text file. The former is
mult-user, the latter is single-user. You figure out the rest. ;-)
Seriously, IMHO a real bug database would be useful. A number of
soluti
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
>> database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
>> want that.
> The database keeps track of it. When someone uses the bugtool to
> report a bug it's mailed
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How about we trial it, but with the understanding that bugs we fix will
> > be marked as such?
> >
> > After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
> > ID should also mark it off.
> >
> > Looking at the present situation, i
e -
From: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:05 AM
Subject: [HACKERS] Link to bug webpage
> If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> th
A web-based interface allows people to submit bug reports they might
otherwise not be able to report. Not everyone is able/willing to
sign-up to a mailing list, nor have newsfeed access.
The one we have (had) allows the reporting, but has the flaw of not
showing when something has been done abou
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
> >> database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
> >> want that.
>
> > The database keeps track of it. When someon
How about we trial it, but with the understanding that bugs we fix will
be marked as such?
After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
ID should also mark it off.
Looking at the present situation, it seems we began a good idea, but
never really followed through with
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but we have to add items that don't come in through the database,
> > > > and mark them as done/duplicates if we want it to be useful.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. If someone discovers one that's not in the database
> > > they'll add it.
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We could try going the other way, attaching URL's to the TODO items so
> > people can get more information about an existing bug.
>
> That might be worth doing, but I think it's mostly orthogonal to the
> question of a bug database. The set of prob
> > Can someone point me to a bug that is _not_ on the TODO list? If not,
> > what does a complete bug database do for us except list reported bugs
> > and possible workarounds.
>
> Do you actually expect someone to go thru the 400+ items in the database
> and compare them to the TODO list? Se
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please reinstate the page, and allow some facility to edit them. I will try
> to work through them *slowly* to verify they are reproducible/not
> reproducible in 7.1.3 and in the current CVS, then mark them as fixed in
> the appropriate release. Hopefull
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
> > > database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
> > > want that.
> >
> > The database keeps track of it. When someone uses the bugtool to
> > report a b
> > That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
> > database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
> > want that.
>
> The database keeps track of it. When someone uses the bugtool to
> report a bug it's mailed to the bugs list.
Yes, but we have to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > >It's up to the group to decide. If we have a database of bugs, I think
> > >it has to be complete. I think a partial list is worse than no list at
> > >all.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial
>
>It's up to the group to decide. If we have a database of bugs, I think
>it has to be complete. I think a partial list is worse than no list at
>all.
>
I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial list.
Perhaps more importantly, the more common ones will be in the
> > Yes, but we have to add items that don't come in through the database,
> > and mark them as done/duplicates if we want it to be useful.
>
> Not necessarily. If someone discovers one that's not in the database
> they'll add it. If it's already fixed it'll get closed out but will
> still be i
> >
> >It's up to the group to decide. If we have a database of bugs, I think
> >it has to be complete. I think a partial list is worse than no list at
> >all.
> >
>
> I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial list.
>
> Perhaps more importantly, the more common o
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> > the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
> >
> > http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
> >
> > Not only does it show the problems he had with Pos
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> > > the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
> > >
> > > http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
> > >
> > > Ok the functionality as well as the menu item are gone. You do realize
> > > it's going to give the impression that we're trying to hide something,
> > > don't you?
> >
> > Uh, what choices do we have? Do we want to update that database, seeing
> > as only a small percentage of bug reports
At 08:22 21/08/01 -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
>I removed the link to the page a few days ago. I guess I should disable
>it as well. Woulda been a whole lot easier if the database was just
>updated periodically.
>
I don't think this is a good solution. We really do need a list of bugs. We
pr
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
>
> http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
>
> Not only does it show the problems he had with PostgreSQL, he us
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
> >
> >We better remove that web page soon:
> >
> > http://www.ca.postgresql.org/bugs/bugs.php?2
> >
>
> Do we have any pages to alter the status of bugs, or assign them? There are
> a number of bugs in the list that I know are fixed.
Yes but noone w
At 08:32 21/08/01 -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
>Yes but noone was interested in it. It's still there but you're really
>the first to show interest in about a year.
>
That's good (and depressing); where are they?
Philip Warner
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
>
> http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
>
> Not only does it show the problems he had with PostgreSQL, he us
>
>We better remove that web page soon:
>
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/bugs/bugs.php?2
>
Do we have any pages to alter the status of bugs, or assign them? There are
a number of bugs in the list that I know are fixed.
Phili
Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
>
> http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
Jeez, Louise. Talk about a blaming the tools because you don't know
anything about
If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
Not only does it show the problems he had with PostgreSQL, he uses our
bug list as an example of how PostgreSQL isn
69 matches
Mail list logo
