| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New CF app deployment |
| Date: | 2015-02-07 12:53:49 |
| Message-ID: | 25391.1423313629@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'd like the ability to add a comment which does not get turned into an
>> email.
> I really don't ;)
> The reason I really don't like that is that this now makes it impossible to
> track the review status by just reading throught he mail thread. You have
> to context-switch back and forth between the app and the archives. We had
> this problem in the old system every now and then where reviews were
> posted entirely in the old system...
Yeah, people did that sometimes and it sucked. At the same time I see
Jeff's point: 300-email threads tend to contain a lot of dross. Could we
address it by allowing only *very short* annotations? The limiting case
would be 1-bit annotations, ie you could star the important messages in a
thread; but that might be too restrictive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2015-02-07 12:59:05 | Re: New CF app deployment |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2015-02-07 12:46:23 | Re: New CF app deployment |