On 05/31/2011 04:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > So in order to start a brand new bikeshed to paint on, have we even > considered a very trivial workflow like letting the bugtracker > actually *only* track our existing lists and archives. That would > mean: > > * Mailing lists are *primary*, and the mailing list archives are > *primary* (yes, this probably requires a fix to the archives, but that > really is a different issue) > * New bugs are added by simply saying "this messageid represents a > thread that has this bug in it", and all the actual contents are > pulled from the archives > * On top of this, the bug just tracks metadata - such as open/closed > more or less. It does *not* track the actual contents at all. > * Bugs registered through the bugs form would of course automatically > add such a messageid into the tracker.
I have a web crawler for a website I maintain that I could modify to crawl through the archives of -bugs, say from 5 Dec 2003 where the first bug with the new format appears, and capture the structured data (reference, logged by, email address, PG version, OS, description, and message URL) into a table, for every message whose subject starts with "BUG #", and capture each message URL for any message that has "BUG #" somewhere in the subject, in a second table. I presume the tables could be used even if it's decided to go with something like RT or BZ, but before I spend a couple of hours on this I'd like see some ayes or nays. Useful or not? Joe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
