From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug form and attachments... |
Date: | 2016-05-15 17:22:58 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ7baFXu-NpWdAqfOAichKq6of+M2uj3ztUq41tbjN+wA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 4:00 AM, David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So, bug #14137 was just filed and due to the lack of ability to attach
>> files via the bug form the body of said message is inordinately long.
>>
>> Emails sent directly to the lists can have attachments so its not like we
>> are prohibiting them as a general rule - though maybe the behavior is
>> different on -bugs...
>>
>> Without testing I presume that the user filling in the bug report is
>> emailed the message that they send - or at least it could be made to work
>> that way.
>>
>
> The form gets sent to pgsql-bugs. If the user is subscribed to the list
> they get a copy, if they're not they don't (and have to review it in the
> archives).
>
>
That seems unnecessarily limited behavior since -bugs subscribers see the
email as coming from the person and a reply-all goes to them (or at least
their purported email address) as well.
>
>> In lieu of (or in addition) to adding a file upload capability it would
>> be nice to limit the general initial message size and inform the user that
>> should they need to amend their posting, to include files or additional
>> details, they can do so as a reply to their original message.
>>
>> I haven't given it too much thought but a couple recent incidents of
>> super-verbose message bodies provoked me to at least voice my thoughts.
>>
>
>
> Limiting the length could certainly be done, and trivially so (we do
> actually limit the length of the subject, just not the body). Any
> suggestions for a reasonable actual limit? :)
>
>
I'd probably make it a soft limit initially - that once exceeded causes a
message to appear on the form that describes alternate/preferred means of
sending lots of data to the list.
As for a good value maybe someone will be kind and compute the 99th
percentile of initial body message lengths and pick something in that
ballpark - the general issue is somewhat rare...probably enough so to just
live with the status quo.
Adding file upload capacity would be a lot more work. I think we need a
> "better overall solution" for dealing with them before investing in that.
>
>
Agreed.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-05-16 07:07:32 | Account signup issues |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2016-05-15 16:48:41 | Re: Bug form and attachments... |