Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:17:13 -0500
"Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Stark [mailto:gsstark@mit.edu]
> > 
> [...snip...]
> > I might suggest again RT. It's open source and has serious
> > commercial traction. The postgres port needs a lot of work for it to
> > 
> > really catch up to
> > the original MySQL implementation so most of the users are 
> > using it with
> > MySQL. 
> > 
> 
> A second for considering RT. I've been using RT 3.0.6 for about five
> months now for our internal support and (closed-source) bug tracking,
> and can report that it works very smoothly with PostgreSQL. I had more
> problems with getting all the Perl dependencies lined up than anything
> else, but that was mostly my ignorance regarding big Perl apps and
> Apache.

That perl dependency issue is not such a small one, IMHO. We've used RT
in the past, but ditched it because without installing a compiler on the
exposed server, we spent far too much time trying to keep all those
modules up-to-date. If you run an mod_perl web server anyway, maybe it's
not such a big deal. But if you do not, I'm not sure RT is good enough
to justify the extra work.

That said, if the perl module depencies are not a big deal for you, the
UI is nice. Just IMHO not nice enugh to justify the extra work when
there are so many other options to choose from.

(FWIW, I would love to see more effort in keeping bugzilla's current
versions up-to-date wrt to postgresql, and I note that full postgresql
compatibility is part of the next major release [2.18]. But my hopes are
probably not worth the bits required to transmit them)

-- 
Karl DeBisschop (kdebisschop@alert.infoplease.com)
Pearson Education/Infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com)