| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2006-07-11 15:01:06 |
| Message-ID: | 200607111501.k6BF16e01071@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 ...
> >
>
> Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
> like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed to the patches list.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-07-11 15:29:41 | Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-11 14:56:07 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |