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 the limits
-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:
By the
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
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
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 thing is that we don't just
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.
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 e-mail to be a
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
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 my ideal
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.
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 patch and it
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 updating the
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
stable URL 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 better
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
people who
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 a
* 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
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 email.
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 patches
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
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 say
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
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
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
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 the
* 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 the
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
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 larger
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 really a problem?
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 think that the
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 scooping patches
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 :)
Yes, it is
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 script
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 how hard it
34 matches
Mail list logo