Tom Lane wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> ... Red Hat's present bugzilla system > >> could be described that way --- and while I can't say I'm in > >> love with it, I can deal with it. > > > Doesn't bugzilla insist on sending you the complete bug every time? > > Nope, it just sends the changes/additions. Other than the lack of a > direct email input method, I find BZ quite usable. Josh was just > complaining that its source code is a mess (dunno, haven't looked) > but other than that I think it's a definite possibility, just because > so many people are already familiar with it.
Have you tried to use debbugs? I agree with Greg Stark that it's a better fit for our current procedure, while enabling better traceability. For an example, see http://bugs.debian.org. There are three links there pointing to pages on how to use the system. Entering a bug number shows detail; for example try entering 330514 which is a PostgreSQL bug. You can add more detail to a bug by mailing <bug-number>@bugs.debian.org. You can close a bug by mailing <bug-number>[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can of course clone bugs, retarget to a different package, merge bugs, etc. It's controllable by email -- in fact, I think email is the only controlling interface. You can get reports using the web frontend. You can get an mbox via HTTP for a particular bug, which you can later open with your email client if you like. (And respond to it, etc). We would have to determine what constitutes a "package" (probably one for each contrib module, one for each interface, one for the backend, etc; or we could have separate package for "optimizer", "rewriter", "transaction system", one for each access method, etc), what "tags" there are, what "versions", etc. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq