Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote:
>> 5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit
>> the way we work.
>> I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products
>> that we would have.
>> Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the
>> core.
>> Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc.
>> Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc.
> I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same
> people that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also
> working on the interfaces and languages.
I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all. I don't think
the project is large enough to require it (we are in no danger of
becoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon). But more importantly,
subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- and
in my experience the initial reporter of a bug *very* frequently
misidentifies where the problem is. So unless additional effort is
expended to reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), the
classification will degenerate to the point of being a hindrance rather
than a help in locating things. Overall I just don't see that much
benefit from a classification system.
regards, tom lane
