"Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Dunstan wrote: >> What's wrong with a patch submitter submitting a patch to a tracker, >> but then emailing the list for actual discussion?
What's what we have today with the wiki. We don't need any special software to do that. It does require some patch queue maintainer(s) to make sure things get added or updated. > well what about having the tracker being subscribed to the list and let it > create a bug/patch/ticket id automatically for new mails - that way all stuff > is automatically tracked ? - That way it can be categorized in the course of > the following discussion but no history gets lost. This requires an AI which passes the turing test. How do you determine what patch is related to and how it affects the status of that patch? This is precisely the work Bruce was doing previously and it's a lot of work. This is precisely what we're asking people to do on the wiki now. Bug/request trackers are great tools, but they're just tools. They don't replace actually having to do the work. Given the really trivial number of patches we're dealing with really just adding entries to a wiki page is a perfectly reasonable solution. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
