From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
Date: | 2008-04-10 16:45:15 |
Message-ID: | 20080410164515.GL6610@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > (I wonder what should happen if a message is posted to more than one
> > list.)
>
> That's a good question. I suppose there are actually multiple archive
> entries in that case --- which one is the message-id link taking me to?
The one on the list which was first processed :-( They are processed in
alphabetical order, so pgsql-hackers wins over pgsql-patches.
However, there is an additional consideration: sometimes, Mhonarc
rewrite message pages (for example because it needs to fix the
hyperlinks which go to the thread index, when the thread index grows and
the current message goes to a later page). If the link in pgsql-patches
moves but the one in pgsql-hackers does not, then the pass over
pgsql-patches would take precedence. (I don't really know if this
actually happens or not -- it's pure speculation).
> I guess whichever list appears first in the To/Cc fields would be the
> best choice. This is a bit of a problem though, since if discussion
> ensued on the other list(s) you'd not see any link to it on that page.
I don't see any way to solve this problem with the current
implementation. I'm thinking we should ditch it and implement the one
using the database.
> One of the things that would have to happen with any tracker system
> is that we'd need links to each of the related threads when a discussion
> gets fragmented like that. Is that a candidate for automation, or
> will it have to be done manually?
Perhaps it could be done with the message-id on the search database.
> (Another thing that really, really, really needs to get fixed is the
> archives' inability to link threads across month boundaries.)
Agreed. I examined Mhonarc to see if I could do it, but I don't think
it's anywhere near its possibilities. I'm afraid we would have to
switch to something completely different.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-04-10 16:47:45 | Re: Commit fest queue |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-10 16:35:56 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |