From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "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 |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful |
Date: | 2006-07-11 17:09:26 |
Message-ID: | 20060711170926.GC17269@kenobi.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Greg Stark (gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
> I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my
> original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution.
> The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within
> the community.
I'm with Greg on this one. I felt his original complaint made alot of
sense and this doesn't really deal with it. I'd much rather see
-patches go away or maybe become an alias to -hackers. If the patch is
too big then perhaps either compress it or provide a link to it when
it's submitted. If hosting for patches is an issue then perhaps provide
a way for patches to be hosted on a PG server. Honestly, I'd be happy
to put up any PG patches sent to me on a well connected server. I'm not
sure how easy it'd be to automate that though (and prevent
spammers/etc), but perhaps people have some suggestions?
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-07-11 17:17:18 | Re: More nuclear options |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-11 16:59:55 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |