| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful |
| Date: | 2006-07-11 14:07:43 |
| Message-ID: | 44B3B0AF.9030404@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>> If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
>> add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
>> discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
>> which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.
>
> that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought
> up before and alot of ppl were against that?
>
> If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled
> that one both ...
>
Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2006-07-11 14:21:54 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-11 14:02:49 | Max size of a btree index entry |