-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Try now, just raised it to the same as -patches (100k) ...
- --On Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:59:18 +0300 Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 5/7/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On 5/7/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
>
> They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
> -hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what t
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
...
* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Zdenek Kotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gregory Stark napsal(a):
> >> "Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as
> >>> Bruce suggested? I've never found
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Zdenek Kotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track
patches.
T
"Zdenek Kotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark napsal(a):
>> "Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
>>> suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track
>>> patches.
>>
>> The thi
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce suggested?
I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track patches.
The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
> suggested?
> I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track patches.
The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk about
patches.
In m
Matt,
> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
Well, I for one would need to change my subscription address. This e-mai
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Alex Hunsaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki
> > maybe this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly
> > standard [PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for
> > patches...
>
> Hm, I wonder
and thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.05.07 @ 16:23]:
> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:18:48 -0400
> From: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
> > (http://bestpractical.com/rt/)...
>
> STOP!
Sorry for biting... I just couldn't re
"Alex Hunsaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki maybe
> this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly standard
> [PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for patches...
Hm, I wonder how hard it would be to make a perl sc
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
> > > patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
> > > if I need to :)
> >
>
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
> > patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
> > if I need to :)
>
> Yes, it is going to make scoopi
David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Patches are an integral part of the conversation about
> > > development, I think trying to split them up is awkward at best.
> > > Do people really still thin
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
>> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
>> still think that the potential for larger messages is real
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Patches are an integral part of the conversation about
> > development, I think trying to split them up is awkward at best.
> > Do people really still think that the potential for large
Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
> We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.
I'd be good with that. The split never made much sense for me.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
* Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080507 11:38]:
> A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
> taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
> and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
> first waiting for it to hit th
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Matthew T. O'connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development,
I'd go further than that. Patches ARE conversation about development,
they are just in C rather than English.
Having one list for the parts of t
"Matthew T. O'connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
Personally I'd be fine with
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
rep
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
> taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
> and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
> first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
> > -hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
> > wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive ;)
If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is won
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.
+1I think the main argument for the split is to keep the "large"
patch emails off the hackers list, but I don't think that limit is so
high that it's a problem. People have to gzip their patche
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
> > infrastructure and would be permanent.
>
> Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever
> is in the dev faq.
> But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in e
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
> to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
> I receive ;)
If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
(http://bestpractical.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches
> > lists? I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I
> > think. If you feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers,
> > please post just the patch to patches and
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches
> lists? I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I
> think. If you feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers,
> please post just the patch to patches and a summary to hackers.
>
> Or b
Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > > stab
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > stable URL where they can keep upd
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > the psql wrap pa
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
Act
Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches lists?
I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I think. If you
feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers, please post just the
patch to patches and a summary to hackers.
Or better yet, have a URL to the patc
36 matches
Mail list logo
