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 52AC5D1DD39; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:26:04 +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 89336-07; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:26:04 -0400 (AST)
Received: from bob.samurai.com (bob.samurai.com [205.207.28.75])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 07DAED1B83D; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:26:02 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bob.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DFA11D80; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:26:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bob.samurai.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (bob.samurai.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with LMTP id 71476-01-3; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from samurai.com (d226-89-59.home.cgocable.net [24.226.89.59])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by bob.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 884C01D65; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <404258E9.10800@samurai.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:26:01 -0500
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040221)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date
References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200402271531.14964.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<20040227201416.N7999@cookie.varlena.com>
	<200402291211.33958.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200402291211.33958.josh@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200403/5
X-Sequence-Number: 3821

Josh Berkus wrote:
> D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge.

I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over 
to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't 
strike me as a good idea, at least initially.)

> I think that the PostgreSQL project would be very much sending the 
> wrong message to use an effectively non-Postgres tool.

Frankly, I think the PostgreSQL project would be sending "the wrong 
message" if we chose our tools on any basis other than functionality. 
We ought to use what works, whether it supports PG or not. Whether the 
bug tracker tool uses PostgreSQL, flat files or MS Access to store 
data is entirely secondary to whether it serves the needs of the 
development group.

-Neil