Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Barring a few trivial details, that sounds almost identical to what I
proposed.
>
> Well, Andrew says everyone he talks to doesn't want it. They want a
more comprehensive solution that goes from bug to patch.
Dave can speak for his own views, but I think you're misquoting me somewhat.
I said that a majority of developers wanted to move to use of a tracking
system, not "everyone".
I did say that this patch tracker would be "at best a half measure in
almost everyone's eyes". Note the "almost". That doesn't mean nobody wants
it. Possibly some see significant benefit where I see little or none.
Clearly Dave does. But it does mean that it's not what most people really
want.
I would be prepared to put considerable effort (say, comparable to what I
have put into the buildfarm) into establishing and maintaining a
feature/bug tracker system, if I thought there was enough buyin. I have
not done so in the past because others (principally you) have been against
it, and so it seemed doomed to failure. Unlike the buildfarm, which can
stand on its own, a tracker requires cooperation from the developers in
order to be effective.
Our present change management methods strike me as being analogous to
keeping track of a banking system in a spreadsheet (don't get me started).
It's quite ironic (not to mention sad) given that we are producing a
sophisticated database ...
cheers
andrew