On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scra...@hub.org> writes: > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also > >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... > > > >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be > >> working quite well from what I can see ... > > > > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see > > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive. > > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when > > they reach this list. > > But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group > on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both > arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger > group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...
Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the need for two maybe three, that's it: hackers general www There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate list). A good MUA will deal with any overhead you have. I use Evolution and no its not perfect but I have no problem managing the hordes of email I get from this community. Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
