On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:17:13 -0500 "Bort, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [...snip...] > > I might suggest again RT. It's open source and has serious > > commercial traction. The postgres port needs a lot of work for it to > > > > really catch up to > > the original MySQL implementation so most of the users are > > using it with > > MySQL. > > > > A second for considering RT. I've been using RT 3.0.6 for about five > months now for our internal support and (closed-source) bug tracking, > and can report that it works very smoothly with PostgreSQL. I had more > problems with getting all the Perl dependencies lined up than anything > else, but that was mostly my ignorance regarding big Perl apps and > Apache. That perl dependency issue is not such a small one, IMHO. We've used RT in the past, but ditched it because without installing a compiler on the exposed server, we spent far too much time trying to keep all those modules up-to-date. If you run an mod_perl web server anyway, maybe it's not such a big deal. But if you do not, I'm not sure RT is good enough to justify the extra work. That said, if the perl module depencies are not a big deal for you, the UI is nice. Just IMHO not nice enugh to justify the extra work when there are so many other options to choose from. (FWIW, I would love to see more effort in keeping bugzilla's current versions up-to-date wrt to postgresql, and I note that full postgresql compatibility is part of the next major release [2.18]. But my hopes are probably not worth the bits required to transmit them) -- Karl DeBisschop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Pearson Education/Infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
