On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> So in order to start a brand new bikeshed to paint on, have we even >>> considered a very trivial workflow like letting the bugtracker >>> actually *only* track our existing lists and archives. That would >>> mean: >>> >>> * Mailing lists are *primary*, and the mailing list archives are >>> *primary* (yes, this probably requires a fix to the archives, but that >>> really is a different issue) >>> * New bugs are added by simply saying "this messageid represents a >>> thread that has this bug in it", and all the actual contents are >>> pulled from the archives >>> * On top of this, the bug just tracks metadata - such as open/closed >>> more or less. It does *not* track the actual contents at all. >>> * Bugs registered through the bugs form would of course automatically >>> add such a messageid into the tracker. > >> That's pretty much exactly what I think would be most useful. > > I kinda wonder why the CF app doesn't work like that, actually. > (Yeah, I know the poor thread linking in the archives is an issue.)
I thought this pretty much WAS how the CF app works, except that it's for patches rather than bugs. Perhaps it could be extended to also track bugs... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
