Chris Browne wrote:
> andrew@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So in a roundabout way we come back
>>> to the idea that we need a bug tracker (NOT a patch tracker), plus
>>> people putting in the effort to make sure it stays a valid source
>>> of up-to-date info. Without the latter it won't really be useful.
>
>> Hallelujah Brother!
>>
>> BTW, a bug tracker can be used as a patch tracker, although the
>> reverse isn't true. For example, the BZ people use BZ that way, in
>> fact - most patches arrive as attachments to bugs. And trackers can be
>> used just as well for tracking features as well as bugs.
>
> Well, Command Prompt set up a Bugzilla instance specifically so people
> could track PG bugs. If only someone took interest and started using
> it...
I lost interest last time around when it seemed clear to me that there was
not enough traction.
Maybe there is this time around.
The effort Tom mentions above is crucial to success.
cheers
andrew
