"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. April 2008 schrieb Tom Dunstan:
>> Even so I reckon
>> that would create vastly more noise than signal in the eventual
>> tracker - part of the existing problem has been that wading through
>> list archives is a pain for someone wanting to know the current status
>> of a patch. I can't see the above helping that.
>
> We don't actually receive that many new patches or bugs. One or two people
> going through the tracker once a week and closing the closed issues would be
> quite doable.
Yes, if we're just tracking patches or major proposals in a bug tracker. The
hard part is actually deciding that they're closed. It's a big very cat-like
herd of community members here. Reaching a consensus on taking action takes a
long time and much teeth gnashing.
Note that some people here are pushing a "tracker" as a way to "organize" the
mailing lists and keep all discussions about the proposed changes from design
to committing. I think they're crazy but they keep proposing that their
favourite magical "tracker" will do it automatically. I think it will just end
up looking like Bruce's lists where we couldn't even figure out how many
patches were buried in those 2,000 messages.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production
Tuning