> . if we used bugzilla this might give some impetus to the bugzilla team's
> efforts to provide pg as a backend (maybe we could help with that)
I would actually suggest trying RT. It's not primarily a bug tracking system
and there's a bit of an impedance mismatch between a trouble ticketing system
and a bug tracking system. But there would be a few advantages.
RT has a big non-open-source-developer user-base. There are a lot of big
businesses using it for enterprise-class trouble-ticketing. Currently it
supports Postgres for a backend but a lot of the queries perform terribly.
The combination means Postgres makes a lot of bad impressions. There are
continually threads on the RT mailing lists about how to migrate an RT
installation to MySQL because Postgres isn't scaling up enough and MySQL
performs better. And these people aren't wrong, it does for RT because the
queries were originally written for MySQL.
If postgres ran RT these queries would probably get cleaned up rapidly. And
with optimized queries Postgres would undoubtedly scale better than MySQL to
large installations.
> . are there any active developers without web access? If not, why is pure
> email interaction important?
Because web-only access to bug reports is a sure way to get them ignored.
You're depending on developers periodically checking some web page. I can
barely remember to check slashdot and news.google.com once a day, nevermind
the 50 bug pages for the various projects I'm subscribed to mailing lists for.
In any case both bugzilla and RT support mail notifications with the full
content of the changes, so that's pretty irrelevant. I think RT has more mail
integration because it's often used for trouble ticketing systems where e-mail
is the only published interface, but I'm not sure.
PS:
Another option is the Debian bug tracking system, which was rewritten recently
and is pretty neat. It's 100% mail driven with web pages to do various
searches and display bugs.
--
greg
