Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <403E59F6.7000600@dunslane.net>
References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200402262116.38479.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<200402261228.44788.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<403E59F6.7000600@dunslane.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 26 Feb 2004 16:04:09 -0500
Message-Id: <1077829449.2784.18.camel@camel>
Mime-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 15:41, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> 
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> >Peter,
> >
> >  
> >
> >>So yes, I 
> >>think this is a reasonable plan, just don't expect "collaboration" to 
> >>suddenly appear out of nowhere.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yeah.  As my grandfather used to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you 
> >can't make him shrink."  (granddad is under care, now).
> >
> >Everyone:  Further data: if we prefer BugZilla to GForge's lighter-weight bug 
> >tracking, it turns out that there is a BZ plug-in for GForge. 
> >  
> >
> 
> Perhaps when BZ supports PG - some progress is being made on that front, 
> but it's not a done deal yet.
> 

I can't imagine the BZ plugin for Gforge would require you to use a
second database system would it?  Besides which we can always use red
hats bugzilla port if need be.  I know people have a lot of issues with
it, but if it works for a project of red hats size, i think it would
work for us...

Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL