From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
Date: | 2008-04-09 15:59:33 |
Message-ID: | 20950.1207756773@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> I've often been confused that discussion seem to seamlessly be on either
> -patches, or -hackers. From the understanding I got on the mailing
> list pages (http://archives.postgresql.org/) it seems like -patches is
> supposed to be only for patches, and -hackers for the general
> discussion, issues, features, etc on anything development related.
That's the theory.
> But from observation, it seems like -patches and -hackers are different
> lists of the same thing, except that -patches has a much bigger message
> size limit.
Practice is often different from theory ;-). I don't mind discussion
about a patch on -patches, as long as it's not getting into major design
decisions --- if it does, then the thread should get moved to -hackers,
though that doesn't always happen.
> If not, would it be possible to some how force reply-to of pg-patches to
> -hackers?
No, we aren't going to do that. It wouldn't work anyway; you can't
force people to send messages to one list rather than another, and
the mail list software is surely not bright enough to distinguish
"patch" from "not a patch" on its own.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shane Ambler | 2008-04-09 16:22:03 | Re: psql \du and \dg commands. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-09 15:51:45 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |