Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting

> >>> I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious
> about hacking
> >>> should be on both lists.
> >
> > Then why bother with two different lists?
> >
> > If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they
> do), and
> > the focus of both lists is developers, then why not just
> remove one of
> > them and get rid of the problem?
>
> One reason might be that a lot of application developers who
> develop applications or modules associated with PG, but not
> the core PG code itself also lurk on -hackers, as it's by far
> the best way to keep up with the status of various PG
> enhancements (and also an excellent place to pick up a lot of
> undocumented good practices).

Won't you learn even more good practices if you actually see the patches
as well? :-P

The bottom line is, I think, does the volume of mail on -patches
actually make a big difference given the much higher volume on -hackers?
(If you just want to skip the patches, just set up attachment filtering
on the list..)

//Magnus