Excerpts from Stefan Kaltenbrunner's message of mié jul 11 16:52:02 -0400 2012:
>
> On 07/11/2012 10:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >> +1. Adding a mailing list is not exactly the hardest part of getting
> >> a formal QA effort going. Moreover, if the previous rationale for having
> >> pgsql-testing was that it was a place where newbies could feel sheltered
> >> while posting bug reports, how are the existing subscribers going to
> >> relate to what Josh is now suggesting? Repurposing this list for that
> >> usage seems entirely inappropriate.
> >
> > Well, the ones who've spoken up would be fine with it. But I'm not sure
> > how many people are on now.
> >
> > If we kill the list, though, I'll be directing people to submit
> > *successful* test reports (i.e. "this worked") to pgsql-bugs. Please
> > make sure that's what you want.
>
> well checking the archives on pgsql-testers (on a quick look) only
> turned up a SINGLE "successful" test report in the last two years among
> a hundred or so of "this is a bug or looks broken" ones which are just
> fine for -bugs, so I dont see how that will be a problem...
... so maybe there is no point in asking people to submit successful
test reports. After all, what value is there in them?
If we want to have more successful test reports, ask people to add
machines to the buildfarm instead, and/or enable the 9.2 branch. Just
for fun, here's the list of animals that are running 9.1 but not 9.2:
anchovy anole baiji bushpig castoroides cormorant dugong fennec grebe
hamerkop hawker jaguarundi lyrebird mastodon mongoose mule mussel
narwhal okapi polecat protosciurus raven reindeer smew smilodon
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support