"Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 10. April 2008 schrieb Tom Dunstan: >> Even so I reckon >> that would create vastly more noise than signal in the eventual >> tracker - part of the existing problem has been that wading through >> list archives is a pain for someone wanting to know the current status >> of a patch. I can't see the above helping that. > > We don't actually receive that many new patches or bugs. One or two people > going through the tracker once a week and closing the closed issues would be > quite doable.
Yes, if we're just tracking patches or major proposals in a bug tracker. The hard part is actually deciding that they're closed. It's a big very cat-like herd of community members here. Reaching a consensus on taking action takes a long time and much teeth gnashing. Note that some people here are pushing a "tracker" as a way to "organize" the mailing lists and keep all discussions about the proposed changes from design to committing. I think they're crazy but they keep proposing that their favourite magical "tracker" will do it automatically. I think it will just end up looking like Bruce's lists where we couldn't even figure out how many patches were buried in those 2,000 messages. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
