Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Again a message to pgsql-committers went unsent. Bruce committed
> changes to several README files, and I didn't get the email and it's not
> on the archives either:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-03/
> (I guess it's somewhere on Maia's queue.) For example see rev 1.5 here:
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/access/gin/README
It has come through here, I think. But the list server has had major
issues today, so commit mails have been backing up for a *long* time on
the cvs server.
> Also, I sent an email with a fake @pgfoundry.org address this morning,
> and it passed without requiring moderator approval.> Also, I added a
> X-No-Archive header to avoid having the test message appearing on the
> archives, but to no effect -- the message is there all right:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-03/msg00393.php
Not sure if majordomo is supposed to listen to that header. Are we sure
it is?
> I think the idea here is that any pgfoundry.org address passes through
> unmolested to allow the pgfoundry projects to publish their changes to
> pgsql-committers. I think this is a mistake, and others have vouched
> against this idea too (most notably Peter Eisentraut.)
Yes, I believe that's the idea.
> Finally, and what prompted this test message, was the fact that Heikki
> committed a patch this morning and his message got stuck in the
> moderation queue. I wonder how smart it is to be letting @pgfoundry.org
> mails unchecked, but have @postgresql.org addresses filtered ... ??
Generally, the first mail from a new committer is approved and at that
time it's whitelisted as well, IIRC. Which could certainly be applied to
pgfoundry commits as well, as long as the moderators don't mind dealing
with it.
//Magnus
