SEO

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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

I have suggested a patch tracker as optional for people before on this
list:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...4/msg00626.php

--
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

* 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/)...

Enjoy,

Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIIcJ4rzgMPqB3kigRAh02AJ9xxmBu3w+VpNp58goz0/2GmRw2GQCaAk1c
WG9bcqJtzD719cRwG91BfTM=
=J69d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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.
>
> 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...

Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches. I
would imagine that most patches would already fit in the current hackers
limit, especially since you can gzip.


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

"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?

Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.

> By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.

They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
-hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.

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

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Matthew T. O'connor <matthew@zeut.net> wrote:
>
> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development,

I'd go further than that. Patches ARE conversation about development,
they are just in C rather than English.

Having one list for the parts of the conversation that are written in
C and another for the parts that are in English is bizarre, in my
opinion. Especially since you almost always want to accompany your C
code with some English commentary.

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

* Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> [080507 11:38]:

> 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.

Note that even though I'm not a fan of the split, the "wait to hit the
archive" problem is not really a problem.

If you sent it, and you know it's message-id, and you can link directly
to it: such as:
http://archives.postgresql.org/messa...il. gmail.com

a.

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIId/muVxNPsxNPScRAq8uAJ9UCCnc9e9FNRGrOZ0ckDh8eQInAACgo M9f
wQ4PXasRJ8mcwWkMa2h8mgM=
=Co1y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
> We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.

I'd be good with that. The split never made much sense for me.

--
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 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> > Patches are an integral part of the conversation about
> > development, I think trying to split them up is awkward at best.
> > Do people really still think that the potential for larger
> > messages is really a problem?
>
> Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using
> -hackers. We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it
> seems worse.

This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
if I need to

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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