Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting

> On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Then why bother with two different lists?
> >
> > If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the
> > focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them
> > and get rid of the problem?

Didn't I say something about not being able to convince people by arguing but
being sure people would come around eventually? :)

Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> writes:

> One reason might be that a lot of application developers who develop
> applications or modules associated with PG, but not the core PG code
> itself also lurk on -hackers, as it's by far the best way to keep up with
> the status of various PG enhancements (and also an excellent place
> to pick up a lot of undocumented good practices).

Well if they want to keep up with the status of various PG enhancements they
had better be seeing the patches too since that's where that information is!
They don't have to read the actual patches but at least see the messages
describing them and their status. As the work progresses that's the only way
to clearly understand the status of it.

I originally suggested having the list manager strip out attachments, save
them on a web accessible place and insert a url in the message. I think we're
blocking on having that implemented in majordomo. If people are coming around
to my suggestion then I'll talk to Marc and see if I can help implement that.
I'm not sure what the majordomo code looks like so I don't know how easy it is
to hack in filters like that.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com