Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 403E87D1.2000202@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>The question is, do we need BZ right off or should we try GForge's >>lightweight tool first? Personally I find that BZ is a little >>intimidating to new users, particularly for searching on issues; as a >>result it tends to lead to a lot of duplicate filings. >> >> > >I think we had previously decided that we will not allow a random user >off the street to file bug reports into whatever system we end up >using. I see it primarily as a bug *tracking* system, not a bug >*reporting* system. > > > I don't recall that there was a consensus about that. The difference between BZ's "unconfirmed" and "new" states is that the latter means it has been triaged. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/bug_status.html . I certainly don't think we should impose such a restrictive rule on every project that we might host on a GForge installation. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: