Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gri7X-0003Qg-3v for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:45:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gri7T-0002u6-O1 for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:45:27 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gri7T-0002tv-FC for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:45:27 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([96.255.250.162]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gri7B-00080R-TK; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:45:26 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F2815F79E; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:45:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:45:07 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Alvaro Herrera , Tom Lane , Dimitri Fontaine , Andres Freund , "Jonathan S. Katz" , PostgreSQL WWW Subject: Re: mailing list redirect for bug numbers? Message-ID: <20190207114507.GD6197@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <20190119144923.GQ2528@tamriel.snowman.net> <20190206164106.GA23132@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:26 AM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > On 2019-Jan-19, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I didn't come to the conclusion that we just should leave everything > > > as-is. I was hoping to either get to a point where either we come up > > > with a sensible way to provide a bug number or other identifier for > > > things we typically want to link to from commits, or decide that the bug > > > number isn't really all that useful and get rid of it. > > > > Well, we already have bug numbers in bugs submitted via the website and > > they seem to work pretty well. This really depends on what the expectations are. There's certainly a lot of people who would say that our bug handling system is rather.. lacking. I agree that we are doing a pretty good job just assigning a bug number to bugs submitted via the web form, but that's a really low bar and doesn't do things we want. > > What if we add an email interface that creates bugs with IDs, but > > nothing more than that? I'm thinking a special address such as > > pgsql-create-bug@postgresql.org that creates the bug ID and resends to > > pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org CCing the bug reporter, after changing Subject > > to include the bug ID and the From/Sender to an address under our > > control (to avoid DKIM problems with the reporter's domain). It would > > work normally using pgsql-bugs from that point on. Yes, this could possibly work, and would be an independent application which wouldn't require hacking up pglister, which addresses one of the concerns raised. > > If we have our system preserve References/In-Reply-To headers, I think > > it would even work to add a CC the special address in the middle of a > > regular thread in a mailing list (any mailing list, not just pgsql-bugs) > > to spawn a new bug. > > We could do something like that yes, and we've discussed doing it before. Right. > It would work as long as we have some sort of "moderation queue" on it, > otherwise we'll be assigning and reposting a lot of spam. One thing I really don't want to do is make the moderators of some list like this the ones who have to make the decision about if a report is really a bug or not. For one thing, it's at least sometimes useful to have the question asked and answered for the archives, whatever it is, even if it isn't a bug. > But let's not go jump at things left and right ATM. We already have another > thread discussing a possible bugtracker (where a prototype has at some > point been built and is shown). And we discussed yet another way (based off > the cf app) at the fosdem devmeeting. So while we should certainly keep > discussing things, let's not build something that does part of it just to > end up with a mish mash of different things later. Agreed on this, 100%. This is largely why I chimed in on this thread to begin with because it felt like we were headed down the 'mish mash' route. Thanks! Stephen --+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJcXBpDAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVstkP/3EQqiNayqCW2Yyh3dCaUKWk uqZ3hB0TUQhkkVt6jbGNfHNiiJFOsG9LeHe3dHSnbRstQYs8YH4fHiYExBQcJevp Am4pOnDvdZixhvfP5oWos39Jw2tBKTdCerS1IsEdOfedChydvNPXI2Pnhu2BaXOx q9Rz9/oQVHrC8YX1zrpuTITzqMpz+H6IfK6q0NO1MXWB26tuZkr9RiKYaKdXP2Hd Q+BAnCqxrQ8HOCTaQzoKHB1d5CDMNN5BLcrCb8hOui0wrYwMd3vVrVgvbcoJgrCS sX5qra/2BxZBJA15mz4t3Mdl0eX2as0422edJFc4SSVKZmiwCmpWpHYPe8GQXxsl MCMJgy7npggxtgngbcE4KKKSivPlDvSoVoTvGoe7g+SL9y8BfcbZFKJkYl0Wrfc8 TM6FPqmJue3Vy5gUMQnafe8lIO/a/U00Q9XqztQpyTCurqJ9ypzgQSwzr906PEEj m9sutvGKKRgOf9XTEns71g/tdo0swCyNWofnd0adymw1xCluIHt2xVqHvxZQ5k4k J2aSLiLdowcwaPKnug2EmVdVs3ohxYPsIAyghWZa6nHVOJHI6E0k1hNFf9cTbgSD aMXlqkhx7DlVSGBc5FsW7ZPmjnHsdyuZeewTe/sneA3h9FbFDA2+W1yXOm/rA8Oa gQMx1hE82fFqmZxch/Bm =UcSK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5--