Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date
Msg-id 14898.1077834578@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 15:41, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Perhaps when BZ supports PG - some progress is being made on that front,
>> but it's not a done deal yet.

> I can't imagine the BZ plugin for Gforge would require you to use a
> second database system would it?  Besides which we can always use red
> hats bugzilla port if need be.

Yeah, I looked into that when core started discussing this whole thing
awhile back.  The Red Hat port of BZ to Postgres is perfectly usable.
Dave Lawrence (maintainer of said port) told me he hopes to see those
changes folded back upstream in another major release or so, at which
point RH will stop needing to maintain a fork.  But in the meantime
we can use their version.  It'd sure beat using You Know Who to keep
track of our own bugs ;-)

I would favor using Bugzilla over anything else just because I'm used
to it (have to use it internally at Red Hat anyway).

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Alex J. Avriette"
Date:
Subject: Re: Tablespaces
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Tablespaces