Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce, all,
>
>> No, my point is that 100% information is already available by looking at
>> email archives. What we need is a short description of where we are on
>> each patch --- that is a manual process, not something that can be
>> automated.
>>
>> Tom has posted it --- tell me how we will get such a list in an
>> automated manner.
>
> Several of us have already suggested a method. If we want the information to
> be up-to-date, then the patch manager, or bug tracker, needs to be a required
> part of the approval & application process, NOT an optional accessory. That
> is, if patches & bug fixes can come in, get modified, get approved & applied
> entirely on pgsql-patches or pgsql-bugs without ever touching the tracker
> tool, then the tracker tool will be permanently out of date and useless.
>
> It's going to require the people who are doing the majority of the bug hunting
> & patch review to change the way they work, with the idea that any extra time
> associated with the new tool will be offset by being able to spread the work
> more and having information easy to find later, for you as well as others.
> Tom seems to be willing; are you?
Hello,
Well according to himself the last time this came up:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-08/msg01253.php
No, he isn't.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/