From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-www@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:16:38 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200402262116.38479.peter_e@gmx.net>

Josh Berkus wrote:
> PROPOSAL: GBorg --> GForge Migration
>
> Why do we want a full-service collaboration tool?

In terms of improving the hosting infrastructure, this would surely be a 
step forward, but the problem with "collaboration" is not that the 
tools are missing, it's that people are unwilling to use any tools for 
issue tracking, etc.  This is in fact a near-universal problem.  If you 
look at sourceforge, very few projects actually use any of the 
"collaboration" tools.  If you want to get the project to do something, 
you still have to use email and CVS.  And with those projects (not 
necessarily on sourceforge) that have a sophisticated bug tracking 
structure, the sheer number of filed bugs is so large and irregular in 
quality that the bugs are in fact meaningless.  (Oddly enough, the 
projects I have in mind here do *not* use a full-service collaboration 
tool, just a bug tracker.  Make of that what you will.)  So yes, I 
think this is a reasonable plan, just don't expect "collaboration" to 
suddenly appear out of nowhere.