X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB21D1BB2A; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:54:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32114-09; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:53:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server228.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47E0D1E0D2; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:53:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO 192.168.1.29) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 4498076; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:54:51 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Tom Lane , Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:52:49 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Robert Treat , Andrew Dunstan , pgsql-www@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com> <200402262345.05483.peter_e@gmx.net> <15111.1077835640@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <15111.1077835640@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402261452.49385.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/209 X-Sequence-Number: 3774 People, The question is, do we need BZ right off or should we try GForge's lightweight tool first? Personally I find that BZ is a little intimidating to new users, particularly for searching on issues; as a result it tends to lead to a lot of duplicate filings. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco