"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> I don't know if we ever came up with one, but I know that the big "deal
> killer" for a bug tracker is that a lot of hackers don't want to be
> forced to use a web interface instead of email. So basically, to be
> accepted, a bug tracker would have to have an effective email interface;
> one that allowed for updates to an issue coming in via email. Sadly, I
> don't think such an animal exists.
That was the position that several of us took five-or-six years ago when
the issue first came up ;-)
These days I doubt there's anyone around the project who refuses to use
a web browser at all. However, I still personally find it much more
convenient to read and respond to mailing-list postings than to have to
go and visit random web pages to find out if there's something I need to
know about. So my current take on this would be that the bug tracker
would have to have a reasonable "output" email capability, but I'd not
necessarily insist on being able to "input" to it by mail. Red Hat's
present bugzilla system could be described that way --- and while I
can't say I'm in love with it, I can deal with it.
Now the other side of the coin is that people are used to being able to
email problem reports to pgsql-bugs, and that's not going to stop
anytime soon. If you don't mind having a bug tracker that is clueless
about some fair-size fraction of what is going on, then you can set up a
system that is impervious to email input. Just don't expect people to
trust it very far.
regards, tom lane