Tom Lane wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid:520.998573151@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Vince Vielhaber <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:vev@michvhf.com"><vev@michvhf.com></a> writes:<br /></pre><blockquote
type="cite"><prewrap="">On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote:<br /></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">5. I
thinkBugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit<br />the way we work.<br />I envisage that
'Postgres','Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products<br />that we would have.<br />Within 'Postgres' we would have
thevarious subsystems that make up the<br />core.<br />Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc.<br
/>Within'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc.<br /></pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap=""><br
/></pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same<br
/>peoplethat are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also<br />working on the interfaces and languages.<br
/></pre></blockquote><prewrap=""><br />I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all. I don't think<br />the
projectis large enough to require it (we are in no danger of<br />becoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon). But more
importantly,<br/>subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- and<br />in my experience the
initialreporter of a bug *very* frequently<br />misidentifies where the problem is. So unless additional effort is<br
/>expendedto reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), the<br />classification will degenerate to the point
ofbeing a hindrance rather<br />than a help in locating things. Overall I just don't see that much<br />benefit from a
classificationsystem.<br /></pre></blockquote> Bugzilla does provide for the reclassification bugs. I have
misidentifiedwhere bugs were in Mozilla and have had them reclassified into different areas/components of that
project.<br/><br />
