Re: commit messages from gforge -> pgsql-committers

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: commit messages from gforge -> pgsql-committers
Date: 2004-05-21 05:22:53
Message-ID: 40AD922D.10101@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Tom appears to be against, everyone else seems to be for ... should we try
> it and see how it works out?

Sure, although I personally think Andrew's suggestion of creating a
separate (non-archived) list that includes the full diff is the best
solution. That satisfies both of Tom's gripes: it is "bulky", yes, but
those who are against "bulkiness" can just subscribe to the old list,
and it won't bloat the size of the list archives.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-05-21 05:33:38 Re: commit messages from gforge -> pgsql-committers
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-05-21 04:59:22 Re: commit messages from gforge -> pgsql-committers