Posting to hackers and patches lists
Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches lists?
I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I think. If you
feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers, please post just the
patch to patches and a summary to hackers.
Or better yet, have a URL to the patch in an email to hackers.
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch is
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch is
This requires the patch submitter to send an email every time they
update the URL. The problem with no archive is a problem though. It
works for me because I am around to supply versions but I see your
point --- perhaps we could make the system have a stable URL but allow
for versioning access. Maybe email is a fine interface, of course.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
location for fetching the latest version.
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch is
Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you
just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
run into problems.
Cheers,
BJ
Brendan Jurd wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
location for fetching the latest version.
Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch isWell, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you
just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
run into problems.
Yep.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches
lists? I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I
think. If you feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers,
please post just the patch to patches and a summary to hackers.Or better yet, have a URL to the patch in an email to hackers.
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive ;)
//Magnus
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Brendan Jurd wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
location for fetching the latest version.Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.
Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever
is in the dev faq.
But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in email.
Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
-hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Folks, can we avoid posting an email to both hackers and patches
lists? I understand why people do it, but it is best avoided, I
think. If you feel the need to keep patch discussion on hackers,
please post just the patch to patches and a summary to hackers.Or better yet, have a URL to the patch in an email to hackers.
I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
the psql wrap patch and it helped me.What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive ;)
I have suggested a patch tracker as optional for people before on this
list:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00626.php
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive ;)
If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
(http://bestpractical.com/rt/)...
Enjoy,
Stephen
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.
+1 I think the main argument for the split is to keep the "large"
patch emails off the hackers list, but I don't think that limit is so
high that it's a problem. People have to gzip their patches to the
patches list fairly often anyway.
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever
is in the dev faq.
But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in email.
Sure, then just keep sending them via email. I often go through several
revisions a day as I get feedback and having all that email volume seems
wasteful.
Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
-hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.
The goal is for the patches list to just discuss patches, but often
there are user API issues that come up after the patch is submitted, and
people often want that discussion on hackers. The current email split
can certainly be awkward.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
What?! Did you just propose a patch tracker? Bruce? Hmm. I think I need
to get a new email client, because this one clearly corrupts the emails
I receive ;)If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
(http://bestpractical.com/rt/)...
STOP!
We really really do NOT need to have this discussion every month of the
calendar.
cheers
andrew
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
-hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.The goal is for the patches list to just discuss patches, but often
there are user API issues that come up after the patch is submitted, and
people often want that discussion on hackers. The current email split
can certainly be awkward.
A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.
But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on :)
For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
sending in a patch...
I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.
Yea, that is a problem. Adding a new patch to patches while discussing
on hackers is a receipe for confusion.
But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on :)
For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
sending in a patch...
Yea, sending to both is probably the worst. I would just post to hackers
and mention you sent a new version of the patch to patches --- they
usually show up the same time.
I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...
Yep, I can hardly explain it.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on :)
For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
sending in a patch...I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches. I
would imagine that most patches would already fit in the current hackers
limit, especially since you can gzip.
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
-hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Matthew T. O'connor <matthew@zeut.net> wrote:
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development,
I'd go further than that. Patches ARE conversation about development,
they are just in C rather than English.
Having one list for the parts of the conversation that are written in
C and another for the parts that are in English is bizarre, in my
opinion. Especially since you almost always want to accompany your C
code with some English commentary.
Cheers,
BJ
* Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> [080507 11:38]:
A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
and say "well, here is what I was thinking". Sending it to -patches
first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.
Note that even though I'm not a fan of the split, the "wait to hit the
archive" problem is not really a problem.
If you sent it, and you know it's message-id, and you can link directly
to it: such as:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/34d269d40805070837q19f1144eu8c316fa1cf6d8780@mail.gmail.com
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
Tom Lane wrote:
Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.
I'd be good with that. The split never made much sense for me.
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about
development, I think trying to split them up is awkward at best.
Do people really still think that the potential for larger
messages is really a problem?Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using
-hackers. We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it
seems worse.
This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
if I need to :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers.
We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse.
I'm for that.
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
-hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.
Note that even the size limit on -patches is too small for some patches.
What I did with previous large patches which were not getting through to
patches was put them up on a web page but with a new filename for each
version. So the URL for a given version *was* stable, the content never
changed. You could check the index page to see if there were more recent
versions.
I would suggest putting large patches up on the wiki in cases like that now,
but isn't there a size limit on the wiki too?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about
development, I think trying to split them up is awkward at best.
Do people really still think that the potential for larger
messages is really a problem?Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using
-hackers. We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it
seems worse.This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
if I need to :)
Yes, it is going to make scooping patches from the mailing list harder,
but the existing split seems to be causing more widespread problems that
are harder to ajust.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
if I need to :)Yes, it is going to make scooping patches from the mailing list harder,
but the existing split seems to be causing more widespread problems that
are harder to ajust.
Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki maybe
this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly standard
[PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for patches...
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
This would make it a little tougher on me as far as maintaining the
patches section of the PostgreSQL Weekly News, but I'll deal with it
if I need to :)Yes, it is going to make scooping patches from the mailing list harder,
but the existing split seems to be causing more widespread problems that
are harder to ajust.Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki maybe
this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly standard
[PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for patches...
Anything with a file attachment or "^diff" line is probably a diff and
we could flag the subject line.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki maybe
this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly standard
[PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for patches...
Hm, I wonder how hard it would be to make a perl script which automatically
uploads any attachments sent to -hackers to the wiki.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
and thus spake pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [2008.05.07 @ 16:23]:
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:18:48 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
If you want an email and web-based tracking system, RT is wonderful
(http://bestpractical.com/rt/)...STOP!
Sorry for biting... I just couldn't read RT and wonderful in the
same sentance and keep quiet.
-Steve
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 20080507202246.4F82824AB4F@maia-3.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 20080507202246.4F82824AB4F@maia-3.hub.org | Resolved by subject fallback
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
Sure but if patch submitters are also sticking them in the wiki
maybe this is a non issue? We could also adopt the seemingly
standard [PATCH] subject tag so you can filter easily for
patches...Hm, I wonder how hard it would be to make a perl script which
automatically uploads any attachments sent to -hackers to the wiki.
Not all that hard, but I'm also pretty sure that's not something we
want. To make it any kind of useful we'd need something with a lot more
intelligence than just picking up all attachments.
//Magnus
Matt,
Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I
think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really
still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem?
Well, I for one would need to change my subscription address. This e-mailbox
has a limit of 60MB. I have 5 e-mail accounts, though, so I could figure
something out. In this day and age of Google/Yahoo/MSN unlimited accounts,
list volume isn't quite the problem it once was.
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce suggested?
I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track patches.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce suggested?
I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track patches.
The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk about
patches.
In my ideal world we would mail off our patches to -hackers and the mail
software (this could be a subscription option) would strip them out before
forwarding the message. It would upload them to a web server and put a link in
the forwarded messages to the file on the web server.
If you have a clever IMAP server and a clever IMAP client you're actually not
far from that world today. But a lot of us are stuck with at least one
unclever piece of software there.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce suggested?
I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track patches.The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk about
patches.
I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want go through
all patch again and again when new version is released with only few changes. If
you are able to have diff between two patch versions you are able preform easy
check if all comments are already fixed.
Zdenek
"Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track
patches.The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk about
patches.I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want go through
all patch again and again when new version is released with only few changes.
If you are able to have diff between two patch versions you are able preform
easy check if all comments are already fixed.
Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would solve. There
is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control system.
We aren't using CVS the way it's really intended. If all this development
happened on branches then people could go look at the current version at any
point, not just when authors decide to announce it. And people could generate
diffs between the last time they looked at that branch and now etc.
Now the problem is that CVS sucks and creating branches is a heavyweight
operation which imposes a burden forever more. Also there is no access control
system so you cannot grant commit access to just one branch.
There are newer revision control systems where anyone can create a branch at
any time and keep it on their local machine. They fit our development model
much better than CVS when you include the development happening outside the
committers and the main tree.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to track
patches.The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to talk about
patches.I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want go through
all patch again and again when new version is released with only few changes.
If you are able to have diff between two patch versions you are able preform
easy check if all comments are already fixed.Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would solve. There
is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control system.
OK. I little bit confused what patch tracer should do. Is it only for tracking
discuss about patches?
We aren't using CVS the way it's really intended. If all this development
happened on branches then people could go look at the current version at any
point, not just when authors decide to announce it. And people could generate
diffs between the last time they looked at that branch and now etc.
Yeah, I discussed this with Peter E. during his Prague visit and it should be
big deal for code reviewing and new feature development.
Zdenek
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
"Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as
Bruce suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly
good way to track patches.The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want
to talk about patches.I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want
go through all patch again and again when new version is released
with only few changes. If you are able to have diff between two
patch versions you are able preform easy check if all comments are
already fixed.Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would
solve. There is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control
system.
There's already an official git repository, and it plays nicely with
the official CVS it sits on top of :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
We have come to agreement that there is no longer a need for a separate
'patches' email list --- the size of patches isn't a significant issue
anymore, and tracking threads between the patches and hackers lists is
confusing.
I propose we close the patches list and tell everyone to start using
only the hackers list. This will require email server changes and web
site updates, and some people who are only subscribed to patches have to
figure out if they want to subscribe to hackers.
I have CC'ed hackers, patches, and www because this does affect all
those lists.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
At 2008-06-26 18:51:46 -0400, bruce@momjian.us wrote:
I propose we close the patches list and tell everyone to start using
only the hackers list.
That's an excellent idea.
-- ams
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
...
* no permanent archive of the submitted patch
* reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
patch isThis requires the patch submitter to send an email every time they
update the URL. The problem with no archive is a problem though. It
works for me because I am around to supply versions but I see your
point --- perhaps we could make the system have a stable URL but allow
for versioning access. Maybe email is a fine interface, of course.
What about having tickets? Track for example or something like that
and the submitter feeling an itch to scratch just uploads it to a
ticket. This way you know the reason for a patch and can even have
a little discussion as well as a link to the revision where it
got incorporated. Couldn't be cleaner I think...
The link to the ticket is also rather stable and you can
communicate in mailinglist about it.
Cheers
Tino
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 18:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have come to agreement
Who are "we" ? Just wondering.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Devrim G�ND�Z wrote:
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 18:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have come to agreement
Who are "we" ? Just wondering.
I had the same question, but figured it was only because I hadn't gotten
into one of the more long term threads and missed this part of it ... it
wasn't discussedon -core either, nor was any mention of the idea made
there ...
... not that I'm against removing it ...
Devrim G���ND���Z wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 18:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have come to agreement
Who are "we" ? Just wondering.
It was agreed during the developer's meeting at PGCon, and based on
email discussions we have had on this list.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On 5/7/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
-hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.
Seems it's below 30k as my 34k (gz) patch was dropped yesterday.
--
marko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Try now, just raised it to the same as -patches (100k) ...
- --On Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:59:18 +0300 Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/7/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches.
They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on
-hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are.Seems it's below 30k as my 34k (gz) patch was dropped yesterday.
--
marko--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
- --
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhmMjkACgkQ4QvfyHIvDvPuNgCgj0qvwSIkI3nuqa1tHpcaNzd5
n4gAoJXJFJUiTPN5qWQ/hUBiaCBXniCK
=blIw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Am Friday, 27. June 2008 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
It was agreed during the developer's meeting at PGCon, and based on
email discussions we have had on this list.
There was no agreement on any email list changes at the meeting. The minutes
say that I am supposed to follow up on this, which I incidentally did a few
weeks ago, but apparently that post has been blocked. I'll try again later,
perhaps with a different subject or something.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have come to agreement that there is no longer a need for a separate
'patches' email list --- the size of patches isn't a significant issue
anymore, and tracking threads between the patches and hackers lists is
confusing.I propose we close the patches list and tell everyone to start using
only the hackers list. This will require email server changes and web
site updates, and some people who are only subscribed to patches have to
figure out if they want to subscribe to hackers.I have CC'ed hackers, patches, and www because this does affect all
those lists.
I think this is a good idea, and was expecting this to have happened
already. Is there any time line or consensus that this is going to happen?
Regards
Russell Smith