Message-ID: <44FA2BD7.6040208@dunslane.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:11:51 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>
Subject: Re: Postgres tracking - the pgtrack project
References: <621fdf7c380b797f32c1ac0f7bccffd4@biglumber.com>
	<200609021821.29622.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200609021821.29622.peter_e@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>   
>> There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is the
>> enormous and ever-changing requirements such a system would have to
>> have.
>>     
>
>   
>> The buildfarm is an excellent example of this.
>>     
>
> The build farm is not an example of this.  There isn't any build-farm 
> software out there.  There is, however, plenty of issue tracking 
> software out there.
>
> Just pointing that out.  Have at it.  I for one would rather set up 
> existing issue trackers and work with them.  If I could just find 
> hardware to host it.  Not that I've looked, though.
>
>   

What is more, a good bug tracking system is orders of magnitude more 
complex that the buildfarm.

If we want something sooner rather than later, let's use something off 
the shelf and tailor it.

cheers

andrew