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
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
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
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 read RT and
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
