All, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > Not saying it's perfect, of course, but it's probably the best option > for minimizing impact on our existing process.
I discussed the current state of debbugs with Don Armstrong (one of the main individuals behind it) and his opinion is that debbugs could certainly work. Further, he's been working to add support for PostgreSQL to it, which would certainly be nice. * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: > I adore "Toggle useless messages" as a feature. ;-) Ditto. :) There are a few questions regarding just how it would work and what the structure would be, but my thinking is that we'd handle it in much the same way that Debian already does, therefore, without thinking about it too much, I imagine we'd have: 'source' packages which map up to individual git repos from git.postgresql.org. 'binary' packages (for the 'postgres' source package; other source packages can make their own decisions) which map up to each binary we have (psql, pg_dump, etc). That's a bit more granular than Debian does but I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm sure there are a number of other bits regarding the setup that need to be considered and how it integrates with our existing mailing lists, etc, etc, some of which will probably involve discussion with Don as we work through them (based on my sub-1-hour response from him today, I don't anticipate that being an issue), but the next big question is: Are there any objections to pginfra standing up bugs.postgresql.org with debbugs? Obviously, it'd be more-or-less beta as we play with it, and we could set it up as beta-bugs.p.o, if there's concern about that. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
