On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 16:52, Joe Abbate <j...@freedomcircle.com> wrote: > Hi Magnus, > > On 05/30/2011 08:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> It's fine that a bug tracker *tracks* bugs. It should not control >> them. That's not how this community currently works, and a lot of >> people have said that's how they want it to stay (at least for now). > > If I may belabor the point, what do you see as an example of > "controlling" the bugs? To put some context, there could be at least > three ways a bug could be closed when someone commits a patch that fixes > (or claims to fix) a bug: > > a. The committer has to use a web interface to indicate the bug is closed > b. The committer has to send an email to a mail interface > c. The commit message gets routed to a mail interface that, seeing > something like "bug #1234" in the first line, automatically closes the bug > > Based on the discussion so far, it's obvious that option b is more > desired than a (where the tracker is, in a sense, controlling *you*), > but is option c --while presumably more desirable since there's one less > thing to do or remember-- an instance of "control", since the tracker > takes an automatic action? Or do you want the tracker *not* to require > or take any of the actions, i.e., let someone/thing other than the > committer/commit message worry about tracking the bug's status, leaving > it up to volunteers, as Tom said?
I believe b is perfectly fine in this, and to me the preferred way. We always respond to the original message with something like "yeah, patched <over here>" or something like that anyway, so I don't (personally) see a need for the actual commit message to be able to do it. The case I want to avoid is (a). And if it's possible to make (b) just be the -hackers mailinglist and putting a keyword in the right place, that minimizes the impact on those who spend a lot of time with it (far more than me..), which is always good. I personally don't think it's good to expect "external volunteers" (external when compared to committers) to maintain *all* the bug statuses. What I want/need those to do is to take care of everything that the system did *not* pick up properly, or any case when the hacker/committer forgot something, or things like that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
