Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful
Date: 2006-07-11 15:29:41
Message-ID: 44B3C3E5.6000105@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
> subscribed to the patches list.
>
>

Depends on the MUA. See both sides of the debate here:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html . We use reply-to for
the pgfoundry admins list, but that's a closed list. For open lists that
often accept non-member posts it is much more of a problem, not least
for the reason you suggest.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-11 15:33:38 Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-11 15:01:06 Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful