* Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> [080410 11:30]:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:15:08 -0400
> Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > > * Where do I comment?
> >
> > In your mail program.
>
> To where? Development discussion is supposed to happen on -hackers but
> a patch is likely on -patches. Although we are allowed to discuss on
> -patches as long as it is limited, but then we push the discussion back
> to -hackers.
>
> How do you propose to track that?
> Do I? What if I am only using USENET to interfact? What if I just
> purged my mailbox because I get over 4500 messages a month from these
> lists?
> No it won't :). You are new here aren't you :P. It will be spread
> amongst at a minimum of two lists.
> Unless it gets into deeper discussion, then we are supposed to push it
> to -hackers and why do I have two interfaces again?
>
> One interface should be the goal.
> What? I would never expect to track between mailing lists.
All of these come down to the mailling-list. Last week I already asked
about the distinction between -hackers and -patches, and what I saw as
the consensus is that there both pretty much the same thing, by
different names, and lots most people file them both away together.
And in my MUA setup, (and gmane, a public NNTP interface to
mailling-lists), threads *are* followed across lists seemlessly. I like
this ability, so to me the -patches and -hackers distinction is just and
address I pretty much ignore...
But again, the point is, PostgreSQL development (and sure, I'm "new",
but I've been reading these lists for quite a while) has traditionally
been via e-mail and the mailling-lists. Sure, there are some warts
(like the current archives), but it's worked.
*I* think trying to change the "pending patches management" *and* the
whole development method of PostgreSQL at the same time isn't going to
fly. And at least Tom seems against it too.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
