Commitfest app vs. pgsql-docs
I would like to add a thread on pgsql-docs to the commitfest, but I
found that that cannot be done.
What is the best way to proceed?
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Greetings,
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
I would like to add a thread on pgsql-docs to the commitfest, but I
found that that cannot be done.What is the best way to proceed?
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.
... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.
Thanks,
Stephen
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.
... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.
IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?
regards, tom lane
On 19 May 2021, at 19:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?
+1. Regardless of the fate of any individual list I think this is the most
sensible thing for the CF app.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On 5/19/21 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?
+several
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?
It's not technically rejecting anything, it's just explicitly looking
in -hackers and doesn't even know the others exist :)
Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.
But just to be clear -- "some pgsql list" would include things like
pgsql-general, the pgadmin lists, the non-english regional lists, etc.
That may be fine, I just want to be sure everybody realizes that's
what it means. Basically everything on
https://www.postgresql.org/list/
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?
It's not technically rejecting anything, it's just explicitly looking
in -hackers and doesn't even know the others exist :)
Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.
Ah. Personally, I'd settle for it checking -hackers, -docs and -bugs.
Perhaps there's some case for -general as well.
regards, tom lane
On 5/19/21 3:07 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
Since we have a "documentation" section in the commitfest, it would
be useful to allow links to the -docs archives.... or get rid of the pgsql-docs mailing list, as has been suggested
before.IIRC, the CF app also rejects threads on pgsql-bugs, which is even
more pointlessly annoying. Couldn't we just remove that restriction
altogether, and allow anything posted to some pgsql list?It's not technically rejecting anything, it's just explicitly looking
in -hackers and doesn't even know the others exist :)Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.But just to be clear -- "some pgsql list" would include things like
pgsql-general, the pgadmin lists, the non-english regional lists, etc.
That may be fine, I just want to be sure everybody realizes that's
what it means. Basically everything on
https://www.postgresql.org/list/
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really� AFAICT.
... as long as it doesn't leak data from private lists ...
--
�lvaro Herrera 39�49'30"S 73�17'W
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 03:35:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.Ah. Personally, I'd settle for it checking -hackers, -docs and -bugs.
Perhaps there's some case for -general as well.
FWIW, I have seen cases for -general in the past.
--
Michael
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:39 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 03:35:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.Ah. Personally, I'd settle for it checking -hackers, -docs and -bugs.
Perhaps there's some case for -general as well.FWIW, I have seen cases for -general in the past.
+1, I had the problem with -general not being usable multiple times.
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:39:13AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 03:35:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
Changing that to look globally can certainly be done. It takes a bit
of work I think, as there are no API endpoints today that will do
that, but those could be added.Ah. Personally, I'd settle for it checking -hackers, -docs and -bugs.
Perhaps there's some case for -general as well.FWIW, I have seen cases for -general in the past.
I was under the impression that posting patches to -hackers meant an
implicit acknowledge that this code can be used by the Postgres project
under the Postgres license and the PGDG copyright. Is this the same for
all lists, and/or does this need to be amended then somehow (or am I
getting this totally wrong)?
I assume the point of cross-linking patches to the commitfest is to get
them into Postgres after all.
Also, I'd have expected that any meaningful patch surfacing on -general
would be cross-posted to -hackers anyway (less/not so for -bugs and
-docs).
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael.banck@credativ.de
credativ GmbH, HRB M�nchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 M�nchengladbach
Gesch�ftsf�hrung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Sascha Heuer
Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.
Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful. As long as you only
ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
... as long as it doesn't leak data from private lists ...
Private lists are archived at a completely different server, so there
should be no risk for that.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.
Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.
Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?
As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.
Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
what the web form specifically asks for :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
what the web form specifically asks for :-)
The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a
list, or enter a message-id, no?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 5/24/21 10:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
what the web form specifically asks for :-)The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a
list, or enter a message-id, no?
Yes it does, but the text next to the field says "Specify thread msgid:".
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:03 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 10:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
what the web form specifically asks for :-)The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a
list, or enter a message-id, no?Yes it does, but the text next to the field says "Specify thread msgid:".
Yes, I've always been confused by that form. I may have tried to
enter some free text once but AFAIR I always use the specific
message-id.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 7:21 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:03 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 10:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
much really AFAICT.Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
unique message id will likely become less useful.Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
work without presenting an incredibly long list.Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
a search will scan all lists?As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
what the web form specifically asks for :-)The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a
list, or enter a message-id, no?Yes it does, but the text next to the field says "Specify thread msgid:".
Yes, I've always been confused by that form. I may have tried to
enter some free text once but AFAIR I always use the specific
message-id.
This is clearly in need of a better UX. Any suggestions on how would
be welcome. Would be enough to just say "Or specify... "?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/