Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
>> If we want to communicate via a web interface, I would still need a way
>> to collect specific messages (not always entire threads).
>
> You're talking about collecting messages. Everyone else wants to collect
> patches or proposed changes. There's not a one-to-one mapping between the two.
>
> One example of what we would want is a table in a wiki where it was easy to
> insert a reference to the most current patch, a few pointers to messages where
> it was discussed, and the current status.
yeah but generating that list is not so easy - in a perfect world that
short overview list would be generated by whatever tool we use.
>
> Or something like the review-board dashboard which lists the patches under
> consideration with their current status. Ideally with pgsql-patches gatewayed
> to create new patches in the list and comments gatewayed back to the list.
most modern trackers can do that more or less (like BZ can track
conversations provided it has "some" way to infer what mail might be
related to what bug/patch/featurerequest).
I'm trying to hack that feature up for the demo install to simply do
that transparently for -bugs so that we can see this working for the
simple case of -bugs without having to do any chances ...
>
> I'm sure we want to communicate by email. We also want to have an interface we
> can all use to maintain a queue of patches under consideration. They're two
> separate, but related, things.
yes well but that interface could very well be a more featureful tracker
that we use to generate that list ...
Stefan
