On Jul 11, 2013 11:39 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the > > > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, > > > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you > > > >> have committed it. > > > > > > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see > > > > others doing that. > > > > > > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of > > > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it > > > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed. > > > > I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email > > threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the > > loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch > > thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is > > missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item. > > +1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can > more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit > notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the > pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread.
+1. It also makes for a nice way to quickly know if you need not do any further research or not. /Magnus
