On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Kam, * Kam Lasater (ckl@seekayel.com) wrote: > > ... The above-referenced individuals > > would be the bug tracking system curators, of course. Unless it's got > > serious technical issues, the infrastructure team will do our best to > > support the choice. On the other hand, some of us would likely be > > involved in bug curation also. > > Stephen, > > In digging around more I found this wiki page that seems to be the > closest thing to a BT: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo > > Is the curation already being done? If the contents of that wiki page > were injected into a BT, would that be enough of a start?
If you look at what happens on the -bugs mailing list, you'll see very quickly that a bug tracker and the Todo wiki page are very different. Perhaps the Todo could be squeezed into a bug tracker, but many of the items on there might well end up as 'wontfix' (to use the debbugs lingo).
That is certainly not the same curation as what a BT would require.
To put it a bit differently what kind of mechanism is going to exist to ensure that the BT doesn't simply become a "wish list" of new features? It will be much easier for people to simply post to it instead of adding an entry on the Todo wiki page.
Instead of curation I'd be curious if others have tried to institute gate-keeping such that end-users still have to post to -bugs and only authorized persons can convert (forward?) those into actual bug reports.
