| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful |
| Date: | 2006-07-10 20:52:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20060710175143.L957@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
>>> accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
>
>> Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all
>> discussion on hackers.
>
> If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
> add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
> discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
> which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.
that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up
before and alot of ppl were against that?
If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that
one both ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-07-10 20:53:49 | Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-07-10 20:51:32 | Re: Removing AddDepends; should I bother with a project? |