On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org> wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 >> 2010: >> >>> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we >>> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that >>> I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but >>> it >>> would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? >> >> Maybe we could create a separate list where people would send patches, >> and keep patchless discussion on -hackers? >> >> Just a thought ;-) > > The thing is, it seems to me, especially now that we have such strong commit > fests, that we should have a seperate form for 'design phase' then for > 'reivew discusions' ... *shrug* > > There may be some that are interested in what is being implemented, but > don't really care about how it was implemented ...
The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that might lead to a patch is fairly fine. Exactly how far people go with the design discussion before reducing it to code varies from person to person and project to project. I think the way to satisfy the people who want to know what but not how is through vehicles like PWN and blog postings. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
