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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date
Msg-id 403E87D1.2000202@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-www

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>
>>The question is, do we need BZ right off or should we try GForge's
>>lightweight tool first?    Personally I find that BZ is a little
>>intimidating to new users, particularly for searching on issues; as a
>>result it tends to lead to a lot of duplicate filings.
>>
>>
>
>I think we had previously decided that we will not allow a random user
>off the street to file bug reports into whatever system we end up
>using.  I see it primarily as a bug *tracking* system, not a bug
>*reporting* system.
>
>
>

I don't recall that there was a consensus about that. The difference
between BZ's "unconfirmed" and "new" states is that the latter means it
has been triaged. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/bug_status.html .

I certainly don't think we should impose such a restrictive rule on
every project that we might host on a GForge installation.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Next
From: Cott Lang
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal