On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:30, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> So when I read Andrew's recent suggestion that we use
>>> Bugzilla, my immediate reaction was "egad, can't we do better?".
>>> Maybe we can't :-(.
>
>> Personally, I'd say we *already* do better than that...
>
> Just meditating a little ... one of my big beefs with Bugzilla is that
> it shows basically a historical record of how a bug was discovered and
> dealt with. While that surely has, er, historical value, it's not that
> useful to read when you want to know which bug matches your symptoms,
> what the possible consequences are, which versions it was fixed in,
> etc. One particularly nasty point is that (AFAIK) it's impossible to
> delete or edit incorrect comments, only to add new ones.
>
> I wonder whether a better model would be a wiki page per bug, with
> an editable description and some links to reports, commits, etc.
> Not but what I hate every wiki I've ever used too ... but at least
> they let you fix the information when it's wrong or unhelpful.
There's no reason why a bugtracker couldn't and shoulldn't make it
possible to do that. I think the reason Bugzilla doesn't goes back to
the "all comments are concatenated into a huge text field", which
means you'd have to prase that text field to get the actual data back,
instead of having it easily available...
The discussion should in that case be about whether history shoudl be
kept for each individual comment, or just thrown away...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
