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 from
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
present now as well as
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.
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 of them.
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 where
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
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
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
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.
Philip
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 uses
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, 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 was
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 uses
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
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 come in
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
Not only does
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
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
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? Seems to
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
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 already
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, 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 someone uses the
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
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
the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
http
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, it seems we
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 in the
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 to the
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
- 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 advancing or
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.
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 already fixed
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 user can use?
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 the database
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
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 add
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 bug it's mailed
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. Hopefully
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 already fixed
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.
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 only ever have a
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 has
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 update
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
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
marked
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 stand
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
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 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
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 reports
If
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
application
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 are
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
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
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 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 admit, I
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
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 prominently
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
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 that in a while. But
60 matches
Mail list logo
