"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> I've been thinking about this a lot since before the Summit, and the
> only solution I see is to design something specifically for us.
Well, nobody's going to accuse you of thinking too small ;-). Sounds
great to me, though, if you think you can pull it off. Have at it!
> Rather than get bogged down in details about how it will work and
> what technologies it will be using, I'd like to share my ideas on
> how it will work from an end-user perspective. There's a simple web
> interface. You can use it to get the answer to questions like this:
> What are all the open bugs for the current release?
> Who is working on the updateable views patch?
> Which bugs were fixed in 8.1.3?
> [etc]
That sounds fine for the "output" part of things, but where does the
"input" come from? ISTM that it's been the input side that's been the
real bone of contention in all the discussions of specific tracking
software.
BTW, another "output" thing you might consider is "having draft release
notes ready-to-go on demand". Currently, Bruce prepares the release
notes on the basis of a very tedious scan of the CVS commit logs.
If this sort of stuff were being dropped into a tracker as it went
into the CVS tree, at least the research part of making the notes would
be zero-effort (or perhaps better to say that the work would be spread
out instead of concentrated).
regards, tom lane
