Tom Lane said:
> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>>> What it comes down to is that a mailing list encourages many-eyes-on-
>>> one-bug synergy, whereas Bugzilla is designed to send a bug report to
>>> just one pair of eyes, or at most a small number of eyes. I haven't
>>> used RT but I doubt it's fundamentally different.
>
>> Actually RT is quite different. It's very closely tied to email. You
>> get all the updates in email and can respond to the emails and the
>> results are archived in the ticket.
>
> [ shrug... ] BZ sends me email too --- for the things *it* thinks I
> should know about.
>
> The basic point here is that these systems are designed on the
> assumption that there is a small, easily identified set of people
> who need-to-know about any given problem. We (Postgres) have done well
> by *not* using that assumption, and I'm not eager to adopt a
> tool that forces us to buy into that mindset.
>
Actually, when BZ sends you mail, it's acting on choices that you have made,
or someone at RedHat has made for you. You have a lot of control over what
it sends. You want all the email? Tell BZ and you should get it. By contrast
with these fine-grained controls, a mailing list offers you one choice:
subscribe or don't.
Apart from the question of who gets notifications, tracking systems provide
some structure and manageability to the data. I find it mildly ironic to see
database people eschew the methods of organisation which their own product
could help to provide.
But all this discussion seems to me pointless anyway - I don't see anybody
with enough experience and respect being able to devote enough time to keep
a tracking system healthy and useful. And without that we might as well just
sit tight.
Meanwhile, how about the earlier suggestions related to improving the TODO
list a bit (e.g. a "beginner's list")?
cheers
andrew
