Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Let me mention some of the reasons we as a project could use a bug
> tracker which have nothing to do with actually fixing bugs.
>
> (1) Testing: a bug tracker could be used for beta testing instead of the
> ad-hoc system I'm writing. Assuming it has the right features, of course.
>
> (2) User information: right now, if a user has an issue, it's very very
> hard for them to answer the question "Has this already been reported
> and/or fixed in a later release." This is a strong source of
> frustration for business users who don't actively participate in the
> community, a complaint I have heard multiple times.
Also, bug reporters frequently don't get any email feedback on when
their bug was fixed. It is also hard to identify what major/minor
release fixed a specific bug, especially if the bug was rare.
> Where *fixing* bugs is concerned, I'm concerned that a bug tracker would
> actually slow things down. I'm dubious about our ability to mobilize
> volunteers for anything other than bug triage, and the fact that we
> *don't* triage is an advantage in bug report responsiveness (I have
> "unconfirmed" bugs for Thunderbird which have been pending for 3 years).
> So I'm skeptical about bug trackers on that score.
Yes, I agree. Too many bug systems are just a dumping-pile for bugs.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
