Greg Smith wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
>> Antispam is (in the large) a technically unsolvable
>> problem; even in the '90s, we'd see hackers start poking at our newest
>> countermeasures within the hour. GitHub is a giant target, and PG
>> probably benefits here from NOT being one.
> Everyone who deals with list moderation and spam issues around PostgreSQL
> just got a belly laugh from that comment. Hint: the PostgreSQL lists had
> already been around and therefore were being targeted by spammers for over
> ten years before GitHub even existed.
Hehe. OK, we will have to battle this out over drinks if I ever make it to
PGCon.. but teaser: I've bankrupted Sanford Wallace and taught the DOJ what
spam was.
>> Pedantic note/fun fact: There was no email antispam in 1994
> I like it when Magnus really gets the details perfect when making a deadpan
> joke.
Dammit. I *fail*.
> Anyway, back to serious talk, I believe GitHub is a dead end here because
> the "primary key" as it were for issues is a repo. A bug tracker for
> PostgreSQL would need to have issues broken down per branch and include
> information similar to the release notes for each minor point release.
> Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one hard part
> of the problem here.
That's a great point. Both GitHub and git itself have no real concept of
releases, and can't tell you when a commit made it in.
Although.. there's some sort of new release-note functionality. Maybe I'll
play and see if it'd be applicable here.
Jay
