2009/7/17 Andy Allan <[email protected]> > > That's practically an argument for keeping them separate in the first > place. > > For the same reason that we have trac for software bugs (we don't get > people to add new bug reports in comments into the source files) we > shouldn't put bugs directly into the geodata. Next thing we'd be doing > something horrid to the tags so that I can reply to a bug saying > "bug:151234:gravitystorm:20090715=I've been there, but it looks fine > to me" and then building tools to parse all that stuff. > > The geodata tables are for geodata. We're already trying to prise the > non-geodata tags out of the geodata (e.g. putting created_by on > changesets). Lets not take five steps backwards by putting bugs in as > nodes/ways/relations. > > I agree that we should not start putting the bugs into the geodata. It will make the database even heavier for no real advantages. Keeping a separate database is a much saner option and much manageable. It also allows the use of workflow which is always useful when managing a bug. If you put this inside the geodata, you lose that kind of flexibility.
Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
