On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:20:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > The principal strike against debbugs seems to be that the source code is > not readily available and/or isn't updated regularly. If we could get > current sources we'd probably end up maintaining our own fork ... OTOH, > given all the enthusiasm being expressed in this thread, somebody would > volunteer to do that no?
Well, actually, you can get the currently running source whenever you like: http://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/ I got that from one of the bugs listed against debbugs: http://bugs.debian.org/222077 The problem is that there is no recently packaged version that one can just quickly install somewhere. > Other than that not-small problem, I agree that debbugs seems like an > excellent fit to our existing habits. Yeah, debbugs is a really good fit here, like for Debian, because of the overwhelming prevalence of email correspondence compared to any other kind of communication. If we all used forums ofcourse, debbugs would suck :) Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
