On 10/06/2015 10:57 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 10:17 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This is kind of like CVS. We didn't upgrade so Subversion, becuase we
> said "we already have a user-friendly interface to CVS, called Marc."
> We only moved to git when it could provide us with solid advantages.
This is a very good point.
>
> I believe the same thing is happening here. The inefficiency of the old
> system (Bruce's mailbox) is becoming higher than the inefficiency of a
> new, hypothetical system.
As one of the longest running contributors to this community, I didn't
even know that is where bugs went. How I didn't know this, I have no idea :P
>> Second, we have a mix of user reports. Some bug reports are not bugs
>> and must be reclassified. In other cases, uses ask questions via
>> non-tracked communicate channels, e.g. pgsql-general, but they are
>> really bugs. So, to do this right, we need a way of marking tracked
>> bugs as not bugs, and a way of adding bugs that were reported in a
>> non-tracked manner.
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that.
Right, that is why I am trying to push us toward an "issue" tracker not
a bug tracker. A bug tracker explicitly limits the purpose of something
that may otherwise be a huge boon to this community.
>
> Speaking of which ... this project is rich in skilled users who are
> involved in the community but don't code. Bug triage is exactly the
> kind of thing very part-time community supporters can do, if we make it
> easy for them to do.
That is an understatement. There is a huge pool of non-hackers that can
help contribute to this sort of thing.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
New rule for social situations: "If you think to yourself not even
JD would say this..." Stop and shut your mouth. It's going to be bad.
