Re: New idea for patch tracking - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: New idea for patch tracking
Date
Msg-id ED959355-B87E-42CF-B431-A1F8BDAC3121@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New idea for patch tracking  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
On May 7, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
> And you describe current processes based on email communication.  
> But if we setup some tracker some process will be changed. I think  
> first step is determine what we really want and after we can  
> discuss how to reach it.

If we lived in an ideal world I'd agree with you 100%. But we live in  
PostgreSQL-community-world. :) There is a *lot* of resistance in the  
development community to going to any kind of a tracker, even if it  
would mean essentially zero change to how the development has to  
work. If you don't believe me go look in the archives; I believe this  
debate happens about twice a year, and every time the result is the  
same: lots of emails, zero change.

> Create own tracker is reinvent a wheel and waste a time. There are  
> a lot of trackers and I believe that one of them fit postgres  
> requirements. I agree with your idea to try one and if it will be  
> necessary we can add some functionality. But I think that there are  
> not clear requirements and I also afraid that there is not unified  
> view of core team on this.

Yes, when it comes to doing a full-blown tracker it would be a huge  
amount of wheel reinvention. But that's not the case with a simple  
patch tracker.

Let's take the baby step of a patch tracker first and see what we  
learn from it.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl vs. bytea
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl vs. bytea