[HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!
Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Vince Vielhaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote: 5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fitthe way we work.I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be productsthat we would have.Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up thecore.Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc.Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc. I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the samepeople that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are alsoworking on the interfaces and languages. I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all. I don't thinkthe project is large enough to require it (we are in no danger ofbecoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon). But more importantly,subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- andin my experience the initial reporter of a bug *very* frequentlymisidentifies where the problem is. So unless additional effort isexpended to reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), theclassification will degenerate to the point of being a hindrance ratherthan a help in locating things. Overall I just don't see that muchbenefit from a classification system. Bugzilla does provide for the reclassification bugs. I have misidentified where bugs were in Mozilla and have had them reclassified into different areas/components of that project.
[HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!
Tom Lane wrote: it does seem like a lot of people like Bugzilla. Might be worth at least a cursory look. We do use Bugzilla and I believe is a very good tool, which should fit nicely with the open development style of PostgreSQL community. New version is due in a few weeks and it's been already noted that a PostgreSQL backend is almost ready. The Bugzilla community is growing fast, BTW. -- Alessio F. Bragadini[EMAIL PROTECTED] APL Financial Services http://village.albourne.com Nicosia, Cyprus phone: +357-2-755750 It is more complicated than you think -- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote: Vince asks: Everybody keeps saying bugzilla. What EXACTLY will bugzilla do for us that would make me want to learn it and install it? BTW, the current wheel was invented a year ago 'cuze nothing really fit what we needed. The reasons I would choose Bugzilla: 1. It's *not* written by us so (in theory) we don't have to waste time developing yet another bug tracking solution. What we have is already developed and refining it isn't a problem. 2. It sends email to people involved with a bug whenever the detail associated with that bug is modified. This includes the reporter, who often will feedback that it now works, at which time the fixer or the reporter can mark the bug as fixed. What we have already does this, but noone was using it. 3. It complains when a NEW bug hasn't been looked at for /n/ days -- this means that any not-a-bug's will be closed, while any that are really bugs will be accepted. This would piss off the developers. 4. Good query facilities, if a little complex to use. Please elaborate. 5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit the way we work. I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products that we would have. Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the core. Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc. Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc. I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same people that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also working on the interfaces and languages. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com == ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!
Vince Vielhaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Colin 't Hart wrote: 5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit the way we work. I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products that we would have. Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the core. Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc. Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc. I can see a little benefit to this, but for the most part the same people that are working on the core pieces of PostgreSQL are also working on the interfaces and languages. I would argue against subdividing a bug database at all. I don't think the project is large enough to require it (we are in no danger of becoming the size of Mozilla anytime soon). But more importantly, subdivision introduces the risk of misclassification of a bug --- and in my experience the initial reporter of a bug *very* frequently misidentifies where the problem is. So unless additional effort is expended to reclassify bugs (is that even possible in Bugzilla?), the classification will degenerate to the point of being a hindrance rather than a help in locating things. Overall I just don't see that much benefit from a classification system. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[HACKERS] Re: bugs - lets call an exterminator!
Vince asks: Everybody keeps saying bugzilla. What EXACTLY will bugzilla do for us that would make me want to learn it and install it? BTW, the current wheel was invented a year ago 'cuze nothing really fit what we needed. The reasons I would choose Bugzilla: 1. It's *not* written by us so (in theory) we don't have to waste time developing yet another bug tracking solution. 2. It sends email to people involved with a bug whenever the detail associated with that bug is modified. This includes the reporter, who often will feedback that it now works, at which time the fixer or the reporter can mark the bug as fixed. 3. It complains when a NEW bug hasn't been looked at for /n/ days -- this means that any not-a-bug's will be closed, while any that are really bugs will be accepted. 4. Good query facilities, if a little complex to use. 5. I think Bugzilla's concepts of products, components and versions fit the way we work. I envisage that 'Postgres', 'Interfaces', 'Languages' might be products that we would have. Within 'Postgres' we would have the various subsystems that make up the core. Within 'Interfaces' we would have 'JDBC', 'ODBC' etc. Within 'Languages' we would have 'PL/pgSQL' etc. Arguments accepted. There are other tools the Mozilla project uses that we could also use: Tinderbox -- continuous automated builds, including subsequent regression tests (useful for seeing who broke CVS). Bonsai -- CVS integration for Bugzilla Cheers, Colin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
