X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF87D1B4DE for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:58:00 +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 87859-09 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:57:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp.istop.com (dci.doncaster.on.ca [66.11.168.194]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2578D1B860 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:57:29 -0400 (AST) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (gsstark.mtl.istop.com [66.11.160.162]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47C217C128; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AwjQa-0002sc-00; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:57:24 -0500 To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com> <15111.1077835640@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200402261452.49385.josh@agliodbs.com> <200402270020.37548.peter_e@gmx.net> <8765dtjmu7.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> <16841.1077859531@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <16841.1077859531@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 27 Feb 2004 09:57:24 -0500 Message-ID: <871xogh8ob.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 37 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/909 X-Sequence-Number: 50498 Tom Lane writes: > As for raising the barrier, you can presently submit bug reports to > pgsql-bugs by either mail or webform. Most of the bug trackers I'm > aware of are webform-only. I don't consider that a step forward, > especially since a webform isn't very conducive to making good reports > (it's hard to attach test cases, for instance). There are plenty of bug tracking systems that use email extensively. In fact I think the traditional approach was to be entirely email based. GNATS, the venerable candidate in this field for example, is entirely email based. But GNATS kind of sucks. The Debian system is entirely email controllable, including command messages to close, reassign, etc. bugs. It depends on people following instructions and following up to the numeric address it sends you. RT behaves like a ticketing system where it assigns you a ticket number on the initial email and then tracks subsequent emails by the subject and other headers. I dislike BZ for the way it *forces* you to use the web interface. I prefer email based systems for the simple reason that I already have a perfectly good tool for composing text and reading conversations. It alerts me when I get messages, sorts the messages into folders etc. The last thing I want to do is have to remember 20 different web sites to check to see if there's any news. And the last thing I want to do when I have a long detailed explanation of a problem is try typing into some little bitty box in a web browser with the pitiful editing features they have. I also dislike BZ for aesthetic reasons. If one person is editing a ticket while another person updates the same ticket, it refuses your edits and you have to start all over. I think all the updates are stored in one big field. -- greg