I know I am not on the kernel team, but I have been a software developer for
almost 20 years. ;-)
A bug database is a useful tool IF it has been setup to be so. If it is a
bare bones repository for bug reports it will not work. People won't use it.
A "good" bug database, i.e. one which will be used, must be administered,
and that administration must be easier than dealing with the various items
separately. Also, there should be "approved" severity numbers, and a
difference between "entered" and "confirmed" bugs, especially if you allow
external access to the database.
For what it is worth, a "good" bug database, which is used and reliable,
would do much for PostgreSQL's reputation in the commercial IT space. The
danger is that a bad or unused bug database would probably do more harm than
not having one.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If anyone was concerned about our bug database being visible and giving
> the impression we don't fix any bugs, see this URL:
>
> http://www.isthisthingon.org/nisca/postgres.html
>
> Not only does it show the problems he had with PostgreSQL, he uses our
> bug list as an example of how PostgreSQL isn't advancing or interested
> in fixing bug.
>
> We better remove that web page soon:
>
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/bugs/bugs.php?2
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
