Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > IME many of the bugs that go unanswered are non-bugs (eg #5316) > or inadequately described (eg #5429) Agreed. > If the goal is "make sure nothing important slips through the > cracks", a tracker could help. If the goal is "100% response rate > to pgsql-bugs submissions", the only thing that will actually help > is a lot more people willing to do marginally-useful dogwork. Actually, if we had has something I could review to easily spot them as unanswered, I probably would have responded to #5316 long ago. (I'm not sure whether it makes sense to respond after two and a half months.) I don't know whether the message fell victim to our (rather aggressive) spam filters or I initially blew past it for some reason, but had I been able to review a list of pending issues, I'm sure I'd have picked it up. I intentionally skipped #5429 because I thought the description in the post might mean something to someone familiar with ODBC access to PostgreSQL. If we had a tracking system, I'd have probably responded if nobody else did after two or three days, to suggest another list or request more detail. I will often hang on to emails to which I don't initially reply, to remind me to follow up, but I find that clumsy and error-prone, and I have the disheartening feeling that there are other people doing exactly the same thing, leading to duplicated (wasted) effort. I don't think it has to be fancy, but setting up something to track open issues (linking to the related list archive pages) seems like a good idea to me. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
