Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >So in a roundabout way we come back > >to the idea that we need a bug tracker (NOT a patch tracker), plus > >people putting in the effort to make sure it stays a valid source > >of up-to-date info. Without the latter it won't really be useful. > > Hallelujah Brother!
Amen > BTW, a bug tracker can be used as a patch tracker, although the reverse > isn't true. For example, the BZ people use BZ that way, in fact - most > patches arrive as attachments to bugs. And trackers can be used just as > well for tracking features as well as bugs. The pidgin (previously known as Gaim) guys also use it that way. They add a bug for each thing they want to change, even new features, and track the patches in there. Then they have a list of issues that should be solved for each release, so it's easy to see which ones are still missing using their Trac interface. http://developer.pidgin.im/roadmap So the status email that Tom sent yesterday would be a very simple thing to generate, just looking at the "bugs to fix" page. I'm not saying we should use Trac, mainly because I hate how it (doesn't) interact with email. But it does say that a bug tracker can be useful to us. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
