Bug tracking system policy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Subject | Bug tracking system policy |
Date | |
Msg-id | 7736.933095494@sss.pgh.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [CORE] Re: [Keystone Slip # 22] Some confusion with datetimedata type andtimezone (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Responses |
Re: Bug tracking system policy
Re: [HACKERS] Bug tracking system policy |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > (btw, I've taken this on-list per Tom Lane's suggestion; the > short summary is that the new bug tracking system is getting non-bug > bug reports and it is short-circuiting the highly successful mailing > list support process.) Just to give everyone else some context (and try to get a more useful title on the thread ;-)), this discussion concerns the Keystone bug tracking system that was recently installed on www.postgresql.org; see http://www.PostgreSQL.ORG/bugs/nbrowse.php3. There is some sketchy documentation about Keystone at http://www.stonekeep.com/ksonline/docs/docindex.html. Now that we've got the thing, we need to figure out an effective process for using it. The limited experience so far doesn't seem particularly productive. Here are some comments that I sent to the core group earlier today. Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > We've got a *great* network of folks on the mailing lists who help > everyone with questions. That should be the first (and second, and > third) line of defense for anyone with a question or a possible bug > report, and imho we shouldn't have *anything* in the bug tracking > system which has not gone through that process first. > How do we accomplish this without having a completely closed bug > reporting system (which for me is one of the options; Bruce could use > this for his bug-related ToDo's...). Hmm, so you are thinking it should be a *tracking* system for acknowledged bugs, but not an initial reporting system, and we'd continue to rely on the mail lists for initial reporting. That might not be a bad idea. I've already noticed that people are failing to provide full bug reports (version, platform, etc) because the Keystone system doesn't give them a template to fill out. Seems like we were getting more complete reports via the email process. > Should we consider having a more limited number of folks with access > to the bug tracking system? Perhaps this could be a perk for long-time > contributors who go out of their way to help answer questions?? We want read-only access for everyone, I think, but limiting the number of people who can enter and update slips might be good. My reasons for pushing a BTS in the first place were that it would provide better *visibility* : has a bug been fixed, who is working on it, what is known about it, etc. Basically I was thinking of a TODO list with more detail per item than a one-line summary. (Also it should keep records of closed-out problems, so people could find out what version fixes a problem.) Cluttering the BTS database with random reports doesn't aid visibility of the important ones. We want to allow read-only access so that status is visible to everyone, but that doesn't mean we have to allow everyone to alter the database. This line of thought also suggests that we should immediately enter all the TODO items into the BTS as slips... Bruce could then generate the text TODO via a query from the DB ;-) Further comments, anyone? regards, tom lane
pgsql-hackers by date: