Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists
Date: 2019-01-11 18:23:53
Message-ID: 20190111182353.flfkfrxybredgmyc@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

Hi,

On 2019-01-11 11:38:05 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> After stealing some time from Magnus to chat quickly about this (he
> seems to be mostly unavailable at present), what we're trying to figure
> out is what the group, overall, wants, and in particular if the change
> to allow cross-posting with -hackers solves the valid use-cases while
> preventing the invalid use-cases (like cross-posting between -general,
> -performance, and -sql).

Those don't really seem to be common and painful enough to really need a
technical solution. -performance still seems like a useful subset of
people, and sometimes threads migrate to/from there. I'd personally just
merge -sql with -general, it doesn't seem to have a use-case left
anymore. But that can be done later.

> Of course, it isn't perfect, but then it's unlikely that anything will
> be. Changes which require us to write additional code into pglister
> will, of course, take longer, but we can work towards it if there's
> agreement about what such a change would look like. In the interim, we
> could see how things go with the current configuration, or we could add
> other lists to the 'exclude', beyond just -hackers and the private
> lists, or we could add them all (effectively going back to where things
> were before the changes were made).
>
> Thoughts? Specific votes in one of those directions would help me, at
> least, figure out what should be done today.

I think you should just revert to the prior state, and then we can
discuss potential solutions and the problems they're intended to
address. I find it baffling that after being called out for
unilateral/not publicly discussed decisions you attempt to address that
criticism by continuing to make unilateral decisions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-01-11 18:27:43 Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-01-11 18:19:34 Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-11 18:33:25 Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-01-11 16:43:09 Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists