All,
Several of us hashed this out at the Code Sprint. While the solution we
arrived at doesn't completely satisfy Greg, several others would be fine with
just having a version of pgsql-patches (pgsql-patches-lite?) that we could
subscribe to to get the messages without the attachments.
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?
Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.
that is a
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that
one
both ...
Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like
emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
Indeed.
* Greg Stark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my
original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution.
The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within
the community.
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped
of attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to.
I think reply-to is just a single address. It may work in some mailers though.
Regardless the issue is that someone may send a personal message and be
surprised when it's broadcast. You can
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add Reply-To: pghackers in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:28:31PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts,
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:
I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of
my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better
solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically
invisible within the community.
How
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 01:04:09AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this
'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ...
Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is the stripper, with the end
result forwarded
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read
Marc,
You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering?
Many spam filters give points for reply-to address does not match from
address.
--Josh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
Alternatively, people
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
My complaint is that -patches serves to
a) siphon off some of the most technical
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
Alternatively, people could just
On Mon, 9 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
My complaint is that -patches serves to
a)
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch
25 matches
Mail list logo
