On May 7, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
And you describe current processes based on email communication.
But if we setup some tracker some process will be changed. I think
first step is determine what we really want and after we can
discuss how to reach it.
If we lived in an ideal world I'd agree with you 100%. But we live in
PostgreSQL-community-world. :) There is a *lot* of resistance in the
development community to going to any kind of a tracker, even if it
would mean essentially zero change to how the development has to
work. If you don't believe me go look in the archives; I believe this
debate happens about twice a year, and every time the result is the
same: lots of emails, zero change.
Create own tracker is reinvent a wheel and waste a time. There are
a lot of trackers and I believe that one of them fit postgres
requirements. I agree with your idea to try one and if it will be
necessary we can add some functionality. But I think that there are
not clear requirements and I also afraid that there is not unified
view of core team on this.
Yes, when it comes to doing a full-blown tracker it would be a huge
amount of wheel reinvention. But that's not the case with a simple
patch tracker.
Let's take the baby step of a patch tracker first and see what we
learn from it.
--
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
