Greg Smith wrote:
On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
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.
Everyone who deals with list moderation and spam issues around PostgreSQL
just got a belly laugh from that comment. Hint: the PostgreSQL lists had
already been around and therefore were being targeted by spammers for over
ten years before GitHub even existed.

Hehe. OK, we will have to battle this out over drinks if I ever make it to PGCon.. but teaser: I've bankrupted Sanford Wallace and taught the DOJ what spam was.

Pedantic note/fun fact: There was no email antispam in 1994
I like it when Magnus really gets the details perfect when making a deadpan

Dammit.  I *fail*.

Anyway, back to serious talk, I believe GitHub is a dead end here because
the "primary key" as it were for issues is a repo. A bug tracker for
PostgreSQL would need to have issues broken down per branch and include
information similar to the release notes for each minor point release.
Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one hard part
of the problem here.

That's a great point. Both GitHub and git itself have no real concept of releases, and can't tell you when a commit made it in.

Although.. there's some sort of new release-note functionality. Maybe I'll play and see if it'd be applicable here.


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

Reply via email to