Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 23:48, Jay Levitt<>  wrote:
- Familiarity: Many developers already have a GitHub account and use it
Most of the more senior developers don't use github. Other than
possibly as a place to store a plain git repository. So that's not
really relevant.

I meant outside developers - the folks you'd like to see more involved in the process.

- Patch commenting and git integration encourage actual review-resubmit
cycles instead of "Here, look, I fixed it for you" reviews

The amount of spam coming through that system, and the
inability/unwillingness of github to even care about it is a killer
argument *against* github.

We have working antispam for email. The github antispam is somewhere
around where email antispam was in 1994.

Interesting; I haven't run into this but you're the second person to mention it here. Antispam is (in the large) a technically unsolvable problem; even in the '90s, we'd see hackers start poking at our newest countermeasures within the hour. GitHub is a giant target, and PG probably benefits here from NOT being one. (A quick Google shows redmine and especially Trac having spam issues of their own.)

Pedantic note/fun fact: There was no email antispam in 1994; Canter & Siegel posted their infamous USENET Green Card spam that year, but it didn't really spread to email for another year or two. Once it did, there were fervent debates about whether it should be called "velveeta" to distinguish from the USENET variety.

GitHub could well be a non-starter, but if third-party-dependence is really
the holdup, I'd volunteer to write the tools - in fact, a google of [export
issues from github] shows a few that might already suffice.

It *is* a non-starter, because (a) it's a third party dependency, and
(b) AFAIK they don't provide *data access* to the issue trackers.

Sure they do:


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to