Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide a common malloc wrappers and palloc et al. emulation for frontend'ish environs

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide a common malloc wrappers and palloc et al. emulation for frontend'ish environs
Date: 2013-01-09 12:54:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-09 13:34:12 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Am I the only one who finds this way of posting patches really annoying?
> Well, I unsurprisingly don't ;)

Yeah, that's not surprising :)

>> Here is a patch with no description other than a list of changed
>> files. And discussion happens in a completely different email.
> They contain the commit message - which in most of the cases is more
> informative than the one just posted, which was definitely rather
> short. It should like in e.g.

They are really two different issues - the posting a patch without a
description, and the separation of threads. It's when they are
combined together that it becomes *really* annoying :) When it'sposted
as a separate email *with* a better commit message it's at least
easier to start a discussion off it. But I still find it much omre
annoying than just posting the patch in-thread.

>> What's wrong with just posting the patch as a regular attachment(s) to
>> a regular thread, like other people do?
> Two issues:
> - If you have a bigger series of patches (like the whole logical
>   decoding thing) posting all patches in a single mail makes the
>   following thread even harder to follow than its currently the
>   case. Note how even in this, far smaller, case the discussion actually
>   happened in the appropriate subthreads. I find it way much easier to
>   reread through an old thread that way to reassure myself what was
>   discussed.

Yes. So one thread per patch. That's what you already have. That's not
a factor of how the patches are posted, that's just a factor of how
many threads you break it up in. I can agree that posting 20 different
patches inthe same thread is even worse :)

> - mhonarc does really strange things if you attach two git created
>   patches (splits them into multiple mails)

mhonarc does a lot of strange things. But this part is actually not
mhonarc's fault - it's majordomo that writes them into an mbox file in
a format that you can't see the difference between the patch and the
different message. Heck, it quite often gets it wrong even if you just
post *one* patch when it's generated by git.

This is handled better by the new archives code.

>> It may be just me. But it may be others as well, so I figured I should
>> raise the issue :)
> I am happy to comply with whatever others prefer.

Yeah, so far it's also just my opinion in the other direction :)
Hopefully, some others will have thoughts about it too.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2013-01-09 13:17:52
Subject: askpass program for libpq
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-09 12:47:35
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide a common malloc wrappers and palloc et al. emulation for frontend'ish environs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group