SEO

Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches lists?
I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I think. If you
feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers, please post just the
patch to patches and a summary to hackers.

Or better yet, have a URL to the patch in an email to hackers.

I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> the psql wrap patch and it helped me.

Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:

* no permanent archive of the submitted patch

* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch is

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
>
> Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
>
> * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
>
> * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
> downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
> takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
> patch is

This requires the patch submitter to send an email every time they
update the URL. The problem with no archive is a problem though. It
works for me because I am around to supply versions but I see your
point --- perhaps we could make the system have a stable URL but allow
for versioning access. Maybe email is a fine interface, of course.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
>
> Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
>
> * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
>

Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.

What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
location for fetching the latest version.

> * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
> downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
> takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
> patch is
>

Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you
just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
run into problems.

Cheers,
BJ

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
> >
> > Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> > would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
> >
> > * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
> >
>
> Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
> having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
>
> What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
> permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
> location for fetching the latest version.

Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.

> > * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
> > downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
> > takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
> > patch is
> >
>
> Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
> uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you
> just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
> run into problems.

Yep.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches
> lists? I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I
> think. If you feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers,
> please post just the patch to patches and a summary to hackers.
>
> Or better yet, have a URL to the patch in an email to hackers.
>
> I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> the psql wrap patch and it helped me.

What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive

//Magnus

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > > > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > > > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
> > >
> > > Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> > > would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
> > >
> > > * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
> > >
> >
> > Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
> > having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
> >
> > What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
> > permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
> > location for fetching the latest version.
>
> Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
> infrastructure and would be permanent.

Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever
is in the dev faq.
But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in email.
Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
-hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
>
>> What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
>> to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
>> I receive
>>
>
> If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
> (http://bestpractical.com/rt/)...
>
>

STOP!

We really really do NOT need to have this discussion every month of the
calendar.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:

> > Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
> > -hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
> > wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
> > updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
> > would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.
>
> The goal is for the patches list to just discuss patches, but often
> there are user API issues that come up after the patch is submitted, and
> people often want that discussion on hackers. The current email split
> can certainly be awkward.
>

A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.

But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on

For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
sending in a patch...

I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
> taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
> and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
> first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
> reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.

Yea, that is a problem. Adding a new patch to patches while discussing
on hackers is a receipe for confusion.

> But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on
>
> For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
> was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
> sending in a patch...

Yea, sending to both is probably the worst. I would just post to hackers
and mention you sent a new version of the patch to patches --- they
usually show up the same time.

> I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
> as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...

Yep, I can hardly explain it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers