Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 404258E9.10800@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date
Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote: > D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge. I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't strike me as a good idea, at least initially.) > I think that the PostgreSQL project would be very much sending the > wrong message to use an effectively non-Postgres tool. Frankly, I think the PostgreSQL project would be sending "the wrong message" if we chose our tools on any basis other than functionality. We ought to use what works, whether it supports PG or not. Whether the bug tracker tool uses PostgreSQL, flat files or MS Access to store data is entirely secondary to whether it serves the needs of the development group. -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: