Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Am Montag, 28. April 2008 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout: As one of those confused, it would be really nice if someone could summarise it all on a wiki page that we can point people to. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TrackerDiscussion -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Shane Ambler wrote: Andrew Sullivan wrote: Maybe because there's a perfectly functional archive link in the mail headers? And because there's an RFC that tells us how such headers are supposed to work? As a lot of people use gui apps, (I do seem to recall that mail cli shows the full headers) most would never see the detailed headers of an email. I know I very rarely look at the full source of an email. So the proper thing to do is complain to the writer of the GUI app so that it has an option for showing the list headers, perhaps adding a menu entry when they are found. CLI email clients do not typically show the full headers -- the user must ask for them, just like a GUI app. Most of the time I don't look at the source of emails either. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:58:01AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: So the proper thing to do is complain to the writer of the GUI app so that it has an option for showing the list headers, perhaps adding a menu entry when they are found. At least in the case of Thunderbird, you already have an option: http://www.juergen-ernst.de/addons/mailinglistheader.html According to the manual, claws has a whole Message/Mailing-List submenu with built-in support for this. (This took me approximately 10 seconds to find through Google. The claws manual looks pretty good, I have to say.) I was unable to find the way to to this in Lookout! I don't use the Mac OS Mail client, but a quick look didn't yield anything obvious. However, these both allow you to look at the raw mail message, which has the header. Given that List-Archive was standardized in RFC2369, which came out in 1998, and that virtually every list server software shipping since about 2000 has it built in and turned on by default, I fail completely to see how using something as free-form as a signature footer is supposed to be an improvement. A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes: Raphaël Jacquot wrote: would seem like a good idea, no ? http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/ Before you come trolling on this (or any other) subject, please read the voluminous debates that have taken place about it. Apparently you think it's something we have never considered, which in light of the product we maintain would be more than remarkable. Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. This seems more than a tad unfair. Yes, it is certainly fair to observe that there have been voluminous debates. But it will take a whole lot of trolling around in the archives to figure out the shape of the *conclusions* of those debates. Seeming relevant conclusions: - Yes, there probably ought to be some sort of structured bug tracker. - HOWEVER, there are many who prefer to use email for their work, as opposed to being forced into some sort of webby thing. - That being said, experimentation is taking place for the commitfests with using a wiki to track statuses of patches and discussions. - It is hoped that out of this experimentation, patterns surrounding what is *truly* needful to structure will emerge. There is reason to be hopeful about this, as the wiki-based process has been showing some useful structures to impose already. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html I find it hard to believe a professional programmer could support the concept of Open Source. -- David J. Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Chris Browne wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes: Raphaël Jacquot wrote: would seem like a good idea, no ? http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/ Before you come trolling on this (or any other) subject, please read the voluminous debates that have taken place about it. Apparently you think it's something we have never considered, which in light of the product we maintain would be more than remarkable. Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. This seems more than a tad unfair. I'm sorry, open season to beat me up on this closed yesterday. :-) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:55:18AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: Yes, it is certainly fair to observe that there have been voluminous debates. But it will take a whole lot of trolling around in the archives to figure out the shape of the *conclusions* of those debates. As one of those confused, it would be really nice if someone could summarise it all on a wiki page that we can point people to. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:54:46AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: How would he know to search at the archives? * There is no archives signature at the bottom of -hackers lists Maybe because there's a perfectly functional archive link in the mail headers? And because there's an RFC that tells us how such headers are supposed to work? A Oh so there is. As a lot of people use gui apps, (I do seem to recall that mail cli shows the full headers) most would never see the detailed headers of an email. I know I very rarely look at the full source of an email. -- Shane Ambler pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Raphaël Jacquot wrote: would seem like a good idea, no ? http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/ Before you come trolling on this (or any other) subject, please read the voluminous debates that have taken place about it. Apparently you think it's something we have never considered, which in light of the product we maintain would be more than remarkable. Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Before you come trolling on this (or any other) subject, please read the voluminous debates that have taken place about it. Apparently you think it's something we have never considered, which in light of the product we maintain would be more than remarkable. Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. Hi Andrew, Let's be fair. It would be an almost impossible task to make any sense of the archives on this topic without dedicating tens of hours to the task, and having access to a better way of reading the archives than is offered at archives.postgresql.org. Raphaël, there have indeed been vast debates about this. My version of the executive summary would be that some people want a tracker, some people think email is good enough, and the people who do want a tracker have different opinions about which tracker would be best for the project. There's a wiki page about the (daunting) set of features which would be required in a tracker to make everybody happy[1]. We are currently experimenting with using a wiki page to organise our queue of patches[2], and there has been some effort to set up a test bugzilla installation[3] but as yet there has been no viable consensus as to adopting a particular tracker. Cheers, BJ [1] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TrackerDiscussion [2] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May [3] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tracker:BugzillaTest -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFIEsya5YBsbHkuyV0RAnOyAKDI7Ygcb8m689IJtMcGQtmMq+5CPwCeMIsk /+eXsTtGNVVWIfsvNsEyW7A= =6DTB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Brendan Jurd wrote: Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. Hi Andrew, Let's be fair. It would be an almost impossible task to make any sense of the archives on this topic without dedicating tens of hours to the task, and having access to a better way of reading the archives than is offered at archives.postgresql.org. +1 The idea that anyone would waste their time (and yes it is a complete waste of time) reviewing the archives which are almost impossible to search unless you know exactly what you are looking for is ridiculous. Andrew, I am frankly surprised that you would have that response for the individual. How do you know he was trolling? Perhaps he is just surprised (which is the impression that I got) that considering we are such a mature project that we don't have a bugzilla or other such beast. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Brendan Jurd wrote: Having done that, please endeavour to make an actual contribution to the discussion. Hi Andrew, Let's be fair. It would be an almost impossible task to make any sense of the archives on this topic without dedicating tens of hours to the task, and having access to a better way of reading the archives than is offered at archives.postgresql.org. +1 The idea that anyone would waste their time (and yes it is a complete waste of time) reviewing the archives which are almost impossible to search unless you know exactly what you are looking for is ridiculous. Andrew, I am frankly surprised that you would have that response for the individual. I entered bugzilla on the archives search page and got this link, right out of the recent discussion, at the top of the list: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00764.php That and a few similar results might have given the OP some hints about what people are thinking and why. So your suggestion that the search engine is useless is just plain wrong in this case. How do you know he was trolling? Perhaps he is just surprised (which is the impression that I got) that considering we are such a mature project that we don't have a bugzilla or other such beast. Well, his post added precisely nothing to the debate. Personally, when I find something surprising my first reaction is to go looking for a reason, and only to ask about it if I can't find answers. As I have demonstrated, finding clues would have been absurdly simple, despite your assertion to the contrary. I just don't see any point at all in posting a link to some random blog where mostly anonymous posters comment on our lack of a bug tracker. A reasoned contribution to the debate on the other hand will be welcome. Perhaps it wasn't a troll. If it wasn't I apologise. My other points remain, however. (BTW, I have long been on the record as being in favor of using a tracker for both bugs and features, and I did work some years ago on making mainline Bugzilla fully support Postgres.) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I entered bugzilla on the archives search page and got this link, right out of the recent discussion, at the top of the list: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00764.php That and a few similar results might have given the OP some hints about what people are thinking and why. How would he know to search at the archives? * There is no archives signature at the bottom of -hackers lists * The mail-pref link when followed doesn't provide a link to the archives * The website? Hmm I guess I click support and then a link called mailing lists, oh and then there is a link somewhere down the middle of the page that says, archives. Lastly, why would I search the archives? There is this vast assumption that anyone (I do this too) will just know to do something in this community. I think that assumption is far off base. IMO, a more appropriate response would have been something like: Thanks for the discussion, this is something our community is currently considering. You can view these two links if you are interested. link link All we did with our response is say... Hey, you are a troll, go away. When in fact he likely wasn't. Well, his post added precisely nothing to the debate. Personally, when I find something surprising my first reaction is to go looking for a reason, and only to ask about it if I can't find answers. As I have As my wife often tells me, you are not like everyone else. The first natural response from most people that I encounter, is to ask not to research. demonstrated, finding clues would have been absurdly simple, despite your assertion to the contrary. I just don't see any point at all in posting a link to some random blog where mostly anonymous posters comment on our lack of a bug tracker. Well I won't disagree that the post was offtopic for the list. (BTW, I have long been on the record as being in favor of using a tracker for both bugs and features, and I did work some years ago on making mainline Bugzilla fully support Postgres.) Right, which is also why I was surprised by your reply. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How would he know to search at the archives? If he knew enough about the community to post in -hackers (as opposed to, say, -general or -novice) he should certainly have heard of the mailing list archives. *You* might find 'em useless but I don't. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How would he know to search at the archives? If he knew enough about the community to post in -hackers (as opposed to, say, -general or -novice) he should certainly have heard of the You think so? (not being sarcastic). mailing list archives. *You* might find 'em useless but I don't. I didn't say I found them useless. I said they are useless unless you know what you are looking for. I am pretty sure that when it comes to PostgreSQL, you always know what you are looking for. Anyway, now I am off-topic, so I am done with this thread. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:54:46AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: How would he know to search at the archives? * There is no archives signature at the bottom of -hackers lists Maybe because there's a perfectly functional archive link in the mail headers? And because there's an RFC that tells us how such headers are supposed to work? A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
would seem like a good idea, no ? http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
