Re: mailing list redirect for bug numbers? - Mailing list pgsql-www

Greetings,

* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2019-Jan-19, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I didn't come to the conclusion that we just should leave everything
> > > as-is.  I was hoping to either get to a point where either we come up
> > > with a sensible way to provide a bug number or other identifier for
> > > things we typically want to link to from commits, or decide that the bug
> > > number isn't really all that useful and get rid of it.
> >
> > Well, we already have bug numbers in bugs submitted via the website and
> > they seem to work pretty well.

This really depends on what the expectations are.  There's certainly a
lot of people who would say that our bug handling system is rather..
lacking.  I agree that we are doing a pretty good job just assigning a
bug number to bugs submitted via the web form, but that's a really low
bar and doesn't do things we want.

> > What if we add an email interface that creates bugs with IDs, but
> > nothing more than that?  I'm thinking a special address such as
> > pgsql-create-bug@postgresql.org that creates the bug ID and resends to
> > pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org CCing the bug reporter, after changing Subject
> > to include the bug ID and the From/Sender to an address under our
> > control (to avoid DKIM problems with the reporter's domain).  It would
> > work normally using pgsql-bugs from that point on.

Yes, this could possibly work, and would be an independent application
which wouldn't require hacking up pglister, which addresses one of the
concerns raised.

> > If we have our system preserve References/In-Reply-To headers, I think
> > it would even work to add a CC the special address in the middle of a
> > regular thread in a mailing list (any mailing list, not just pgsql-bugs)
> > to spawn a new bug.
>
> We could do something like that yes, and we've discussed doing it before.

Right.

> It would work as long as we have some sort of "moderation queue" on it,
> otherwise we'll be assigning and reposting a lot of spam.

One thing I really don't want to do is make the moderators of some list
like this the ones who have to make the decision about if a report is
really a bug or not.  For one thing, it's at least sometimes useful to
have the question asked and answered for the archives, whatever it is,
even if it isn't a bug.

> But let's not go jump at things left and right ATM. We already have another
> thread discussing a possible bugtracker (where a prototype has at some
> point been built and is shown). And we discussed yet another way (based off
> the cf app) at the fosdem devmeeting. So while we should certainly keep
> discussing things, let's not build something that does part of it just to
> end up with a mish mash of different things later.

Agreed on this, 100%.  This is largely why I chimed in on this thread to
begin with because it felt like we were headed down the 'mish mash'
route.

Thanks!

Stephen