How about we trial it, but with the understanding that bugs we fix will
be marked as such?
After all, every bug is given an ID, so whomever fixes the bug with that
ID should also mark it off.
Looking at the present situation, it seems we began a good idea, but
never really followed through with it. Maybe it's time to.
Philip seems to be volunteering for taking care of what's presently in
there, can we also ask those [HACKERS] who commit fixes to mark them
off?
+ Justin
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > >
> > >It's up to the group to decide. If we have a database of bugs, I think
> > >it has to be complete. I think a partial list is worse than no list at
> > >all.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. Unless you are omniscient, we will only ever have a partial list.
> >
> > Perhaps more importantly, the more common ones will be in the list, because
> > the more often it's reported, the more likely someone will use the bug
> > tool. If we develop a culture that says 'if it's on the bug list, it will
> > get looked at', then more people will report bugs via the correct channels
> > etc.
>
> That is the real question. Do we want to rely more heavily on a bug
> database rather than the email lists? I haven't heard many say they
> want that.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi