| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
| Date: | 2005-04-29 03:13:14 |
| Message-ID: | 200504282013.14500.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Hannu,
> But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
> some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
> of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.
Yeah, we should announce the mailing list. Actually, I did direct e-mail a
bunch of people (including you) about it and invite them to the mailing list.
So: http://pgfoundry.org/mail/?group_id=1000107
For discussing potential features, though, I'm personally reluctant at this
point to discuss major features until I and my collaborators (example,
newsysviews) have a concrete proposal together. It's far too easy to get
sidetracked into a discussion of minutia and politics on -hackers; by
generating a complete draft spec (at least) on a small mailing list, it's a
lot easier to focus on specific goals and schedules, and discussions on
hackers around detailed proposals tend to be a lot more focused.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-29 04:35:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2005-04-29 00:16:24 | Hey, Pervasive folks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-29 04:17:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement sharable row-level locks, and use them for foreign key |
| Previous Message | Brent Verner | 2005-04-29 00:49:28 | Re: [proposal] protocol extension to support loadable stream filters |