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 A3CF5D1CAF6; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:20:46 +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 43209-04; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:20:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from curie.credativ.org (credativ.com [217.160.209.18])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 708D2D1B9BE; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:20:36 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BD0C555F05; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:20:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from colt.pezone.net (dsl-213-023-254-168.arcor-ip.net
	[213.23.254.168]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 263F655EEA; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:20:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: josh@agliodbs.com, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:20:37 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<15111.1077835640@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200402261452.49385.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200402261452.49385.josh@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200402270020.37548.peter_e@gmx.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS at credativ.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200402/211
X-Sequence-Number: 3776

Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.

I think we had previously decided that we will not allow a random user 
off the street to file bug reports into whatever system we end up 
using.  I see it primarily as a bug *tracking* system, not a bug 
*reporting* system.