Tom Lane writes:
> What we could use instead is for someone knowledgeable to commit to
> transferring *valid* emailed bug reports into the tracking system.
> Bruce could do that if he wants, but there are surely dozens of other
> people who would be qualified to handle this task.
I don't think we need decicated bug transferrers. Typically, when someone
reports a problem by email, the first step is that some developer or other
expert responds (unless the reporter gets blown away by fellow users as
clueless :-)). So the natural extension of this process would be that the
person doing the analysis records the problem. The only way we can get
more people involved in doing the recording is if more people can do the
analyzing. And that step is independent of the presence of a bug-tracking
system.
In other words, I don't want to have a group of people cleaning up after
a different group of people along the lines of the current "Is this a TODO
item?". That way, we'd just have a more complex technology but no process
improvement.
I don't even think that the flood of bug reports is that bad. Over the
last 60 days I counted at most 14 genuine bug reports on pgsql-bugs,
including those that are "wishlist" items and those that are old project
lore and would have been duplicates of existing recorded bugs. So even if
you count in bugs coming in through other channels, this should be
manageable.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net