X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE0D5E40BA for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:52:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74921-03 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:52:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A98D5E46CC for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:52:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35C0F3441C; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3478433C16; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: Robert Treat Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Wrong version number on bug form (again) (still) In-Reply-To: <1092331815.398.191.camel@camel> Message-ID: <20040812145208.C83100@ganymede.hub.org> References: <15581.1092250509@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1092258483.8615.2570.camel@camel> <18940.1092259691@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1092331815.398.191.camel@camel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200408/109 X-Sequence-Number: 4884 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Robert Treat wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 17:28, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Treat writes: >>> On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 14:55, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Actually I wonder that we shouldn't get rid of the popup and >>>> just make the version a text entry field. >> >>> I am guessing the concern is that this forces people to pick something >>> rather than not reporting a version at all. (Note, this isn't an >>> objection to the idea, I'm rather ambivalent myself) >> >> That was probably the idea, but there is no guarantee that they'll pick >> the right thing anyway. And if the box doesn't *offer* the right thing >> then it's actively hurting the cause. I think on balance it's a loss. >> > > Anyone else want to weigh in before I change it to an empty text box? Only suggest, based on your thought about forcing something ... make it a required field ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664