Thread: List traffic
Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least helps me manage the fire hydrant. Thanks! -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > > Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that > reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that > mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. > > If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem > in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not > promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least > helps me manage the fire hydrant. [ email only to hackers; admin and general email lists removed ] I completely understand the problem of keeping up with the email lists. Because you are a committer, I hope you will be able to monitor post-commit feedback for patches you apply. Other than that, I can collect bug reports related to your work and ask you to review a web page occasionally. However, it is hard to do this during beta because the bugs usually need to be addressed quickly. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that >> reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that >> mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. >> >> If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem >> in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not >> promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least >> helps me manage the fire hydrant. > > [ email only to hackers; admin and general email lists removed ] > > I completely understand the problem of keeping up with the email lists. > Because you are a committer, I hope you will be able to monitor > post-commit feedback for patches you apply. Other than that, I can > collect bug reports related to your work and ask you to review a web > page occasionally. However, it is hard to do this during beta because > the bugs usually need to be addressed quickly. If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but it would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? Not sure where the split would be, mind you ... almost thinking about patch review / discussions vs hashing out new features or something like that ... Just a thought ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>> Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that >>> reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that >>> mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. >>> >>> If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem >>> in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not >>> promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least >>> helps me manage the fire hydrant. >> >> [ email only to hackers; admin and general email lists removed ] >> >> I completely understand the problem of keeping up with the email lists. >> Because you are a committer, I hope you will be able to monitor >> post-commit feedback for patches you apply. Other than that, I can >> collect bug reports related to your work and ask you to review a web >> page occasionally. However, it is hard to do this during beta because >> the bugs usually need to be addressed quickly. > > If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enoughsplit things such that I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but it would make it easierfor ppl to filter their incoming ... ? Can we *PLEASE* not go down that route again? We already have way too many lists. Making more of them will just make things more annoying, because people will just end up crossposting everywhere so people don't miss it. There are good client-side (or cloud-side) tools to handle priorities, etc, that works much better. > Not sure where the split would be, mind you ... almost thinking about patch review / discussions vs hashing out new featuresor something like that ... We just *discontinued* -patches. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that > > reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that > > mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. > > > > If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem > > in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not > > promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least > > helps me manage the fire hydrant. > > [ email only to hackers; admin and general email lists removed ] > > I completely understand the problem of keeping up with the email lists. > Because you are a committer, I hope you will be able to monitor > post-commit feedback for patches you apply. Other than that, I can > collect bug reports related to your work and ask you to review a web > page occasionally. However, it is hard to do this during beta because > the bugs usually need to be addressed quickly. Thanks. I have already been keeping a public known bugs/issues list for more than a year. I do monitor for post-commit feedback, though reading all emails isn't always possible when I'm working on resolving current bugs. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > Traffic on the PostgreSQL lists is very high now and I freely admit that > > > reading every email is simply not possible for me, even the ones that > > > mention topics that keyword searches tell me are of potential interest. > > > > > > If anybody knows of a bug or suspected bug in my code, I have no problem > > > in being copied in on mails so that I can see the issues exist. I do not > > > promise to respond to every mail I'm copied on, though, but it at least > > > helps me manage the fire hydrant. > > > > [ email only to hackers; admin and general email lists removed ] > > > > I completely understand the problem of keeping up with the email lists. > > Because you are a committer, I hope you will be able to monitor > > post-commit feedback for patches you apply. Other than that, I can > > collect bug reports related to your work and ask you to review a web > > page occasionally. However, it is hard to do this during beta because > > the bugs usually need to be addressed quickly. > > Thanks. I have already been keeping a public known bugs/issues list for > more than a year. I do monitor for post-commit feedback, though reading > all emails isn't always possible when I'm working on resolving current > bugs. Sure. You did a huge job of getting HS done and I will try to help where I can, and I know you have a business to run (http://www.2ndquadrant.com/). -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
>> Not sure where the split would be, mind you ... almost thinking about patch review / discussions vs hashing out new
featuresor something like that ...
> We just *discontinued* -patches.
Yeah, it's not time to reverse that decision.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:23 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Sure. You did a huge job of getting HS done and I will try to help > where I can, and I know you have a business to run > (http://www.2ndquadrant.com/). 2ndQuadrant is in the end the main and final reason Hot Standby exists and has now funded more than two-thirds of project costs, though the support of many others is very much appreciated. Luckily the business is successful and there are marketing and administration people to handle commercial matters now, while the team is working on open source projects and advocacy. As a privately held company it's easier to control our own destiny. Offering 24/7 support helps fund more time on open source development projects from all members of the now much expanded tech team. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010: > If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we > look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that > I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but it > would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? Maybe we could create a separate list where people would send patches, and keep patchless discussion on -hackers? Just a thought ;-) --
On Tue, 11 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010: > >> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we >> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that >> I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but it >> would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? > > Maybe we could create a separate list where people would send patches, > and keep patchless discussion on -hackers? > > Just a thought ;-) The thing is, it seems to me, especially now that we have such strong commit fests, that we should have a seperate form for 'design phase' then for 'reivew discusions' ... *shrug* There may be some that are interested in what is being implemented, but don't really care about how it was implemented ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 >> 2010: >> >>> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we >>> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that >>> I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but >>> it >>> would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? >> >> Maybe we could create a separate list where people would send patches, >> and keep patchless discussion on -hackers? >> >> Just a thought ;-) > > The thing is, it seems to me, especially now that we have such strong commit > fests, that we should have a seperate form for 'design phase' then for > 'reivew discusions' ... *shrug* > > There may be some that are interested in what is being implemented, but > don't really care about how it was implemented ... The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that might lead to a patch is fairly fine. Exactly how far people go with the design discussion before reducing it to code varies from person to person and project to project. I think the way to satisfy the people who want to know what but not how is through vehicles like PWN and blog postings. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another > folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and -performance. > They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll > probably move them along with -general but that means I won't be likely > to see any development discussion on them in the future There shouldn't be any dev discussions on them as it is ... that isn't their mandate ... those are/were meant to be end-user lists, not developer ones ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > >> I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -adminand -performance. They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll probably move them along with -generalbut that means I won't be likely to see any development discussion on them in the future > > There shouldn't be any dev discussions on them as it is ... that isn't their mandate ... those are/were meant to be end-userlists, not developer ones ... We know from experience that doesn't work. People just end up crossposting, because they're not sure people are on both lists. And then you want to move a discussion, which just means you have to CC in both lists, leading to even more duplication. If there was a clear distinction between end-user and dev it might make sense. That how commercial software companies tend to work - don't let devs talk to end users. That's not how we work. Forcing people to look in different places just throws hurdles in front of those trying to help out. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: >> >>> I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -adminand -performance. They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll probably move them along with -generalbut that means I won't be likely to see any development discussion on them in the future >> >> There shouldn't be any dev discussions on them as it is ... that isn't their mandate ... those are/were meant to be end-userlists, not developer ones ... > > We know from experience that doesn't work. People just end up > crossposting, because they're not sure people are on both lists. And > then you want to move a discussion, which just means you have to CC in > both lists, leading to even more duplication. > > If there was a clear distinction between end-user and dev it might > make sense. That how commercial software companies tend to work - > don't let devs talk to end users. That's not how we work. Forcing > people to look in different places just throws hurdles in front of > those trying to help out. What *are* you talking about? This doesn't seem to have anything related to what I said :) All I was saying was that -performance and -admin are not development discusion lists, not that developers aren't subscribed / talking on them ... that doesn't make them any less end-user lists ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: >>> >>>> I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with-admin and -performance. They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll probably move them along with-general but that means I won't be likely to see any development discussion on them in the future >>> >>> There shouldn't be any dev discussions on them as it is ... that isn't their mandate ... those are/were meant to be end-userlists, not developer ones ... >> >> We know from experience that doesn't work. People just end up >> crossposting, because they're not sure people are on both lists. And >> then you want to move a discussion, which just means you have to CC in >> both lists, leading to even more duplication. >> >> If there was a clear distinction between end-user and dev it might >> make sense. That how commercial software companies tend to work - >> don't let devs talk to end users. That's not how we work. Forcing >> people to look in different places just throws hurdles in front of >> those trying to help out. > > What *are* you talking about? This doesn't seem to have anything related to what I said :) > > All I was saying was that -performance and -admin are not development discusion lists, not that developers aren't subscribed/ talking on them ... that doesn't make them any less end-user lists ... Yes, and I'm saying there is no real difference between end-user, development, admin and performance. The amount of crossover is so large the distinction rapidly becomes pointless. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Le 11/05/2010 19:24, Alvaro Herrera a écrit : > Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of mar may 11 09:58:34 -0400 2010: > >> If list traffic, especially on -hackers, is getting so large, should we >> look at maybe splitting it? I could easily enough split things such that >> I duplicate the subscriber list, so nobody would have to subscribe, but it >> would make it easier for ppl to filter their incoming ... ? > > Maybe we could create a separate list where people would send patches, > and keep patchless discussion on -hackers? > > Just a thought ;-) Here's a simple description of how i use and see the -hackers list. I'm what you could call a "silent reader", like many other subscribers i don't participate to the discussions but i'm happy to be able to follow them. I'm not an end-user and i'm not a developper. Just a guy that wants to follow the "making-of" this project. Sure the traffic is huge and sometimes i have thousands of unread messages. But somewhat i managed to follow the threads i'm interested in and leave asides others... If this list is split in two smaller ones, then i guess i'll follow both and it won't help me in any way. I guess it would even make things more difficult to understand. This is my modest experience. Clearly things can be improved, but speaking for myself i don't think that splitting the list is a good idea. -- damien clochard http://www.dalibo.com
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that > might lead to a patch is fairly fine. And importantly -- who would be able to subscribe to one and not the other? If you have to subscribe to both to get make any sense of things then there's no point. Fwiw I'm having trouble keeping up these days too. And I'm quite accustomed to very heavy traffic email. I've been throwing all postgres related lists into one folder and skimmed through it looking for important threads. However this has now broken down. There are about 45 new threads every day. I've been travelling for a bit and am now 1,500 threads behind... If we can find a way to split the content sensibly so I could stop reading some of it that would be helpful. But cutting splitting it along subject matter where both sets of subject matter need to be seen by the same people doesn't really help. I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and -performance. They're a random mix of user content and developer content. I'll probably move them along with -general but that means I won't be likely to see any development discussion on them in the future. -- greg
My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the server ... for instance, a totally seperate list for HS related issues, so that, if nothing else, those 'lurkers' that are only interested in developments on that front could be there but not on the main stream -hackers ... almost like seperate working groups ... Twas just a thought ... On Wed, 12 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that >> might lead to a patch is fairly fine. > > And importantly -- who would be able to subscribe to one and not the > other? If you have to subscribe to both to get make any sense of > things then there's no point. > > Fwiw I'm having trouble keeping up these days too. And I'm quite > accustomed to very heavy traffic email. I've been throwing all > postgres related lists into one folder and skimmed through it looking > for important threads. However this has now broken down. There are > about 45 new threads every day. I've been travelling for a bit and am > now 1,500 threads behind... > > If we can find a way to split the content sensibly so I could stop > reading some of it that would be helpful. But cutting splitting it > along subject matter where both sets of subject matter need to be seen > by the same people doesn't really help. > > I'm thinking I'll move -general (and the useless -novice) to another > folder. But I'm left wondering what to do with -admin and > -performance. They're a random mix of user content and developer > content. I'll probably move them along with -general but that means I > won't be likely to see any development discussion on them in the > future. > > > > > -- > greg > > -- > 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. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Greg Stark wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The difference between discussing a patch and discussing an idea that >> might lead to a patch is fairly fine. >> > > And importantly -- who would be able to subscribe to one and not the > other? If you have to subscribe to both to get make any sense of > things then there's no point. > > Fwiw I'm having trouble keeping up these days too. And I'm quite > accustomed to very heavy traffic email. I've been throwing all > postgres related lists into one folder and skimmed through it looking > for important threads. However this has now broken down. There are > about 45 new threads every day. I've been travelling for a bit and am > now 1,500 threads behind... > I've only been actively reading the pg lists for a few months now, after several previous attempts that failed mainly because the way I set it up did not work nice, mainly because of the volume. I tried digests, didn't like it (how to reply?), also didn't like that the pg mails that were so many completely swamped the 'main' email I use. Now I made a new gmail account, subscribed to all lists with some volume and let it all message per message come into the inbox. Together with thunderbird/imap this works quite nicely. With filters it's possible to tag interesting messages (like does the To: contain my email? -> tag it so it becomes green). Now I only need to view unread mails, (by thread or date), read some messages and then ctrl-shift-c - all read. My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. regards, Yeb Havinga
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the server ... for instance, a totally seperate listfor HS related issues, so that, if nothing else, those 'lurkers' that are only interested in developments on that frontcould be there but not on the main stream -hackers ... almost like seperate working groups ... We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >> >> My thought had been a split along the lines of major components of the server ... for instance, a totally seperate listfor HS related issues, so that, if nothing else, those 'lurkers' that are only interested in developments on that frontcould be there but not on the main stream -hackers ... almost like seperate working groups ... > > We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also > pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be working quite well from what I can see ... guess it depends on if ppl want it to fail in the first place or not *shrug* It also depends if a clear line can be drawn and adhered to ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: > Now I made a new gmail account, subscribed to all lists with some volume > and let it all message per message come into the inbox. Together with > thunderbird/imap this works quite nicely. With filters it's possible to > tag interesting messages (like does the To: contain my email? -> tag it > so it becomes green). Now I only need to view unread mails, (by thread > or date), read some messages and then ctrl-shift-c - all read. > > My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call > it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be > really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the > emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), > so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps > badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. Yeah, this approach is interesting. A few days ago I started using Sup ( http://sup.rubyforge.org/ ) to manage my email, and after a rather lengthy warm-up process, I find it a lot more comfortable than Mutt (or anything else I've tried earlier, for that matter). I particularly like the multiple buffer approach, avoiding the need for switching between several Mutt instances, one for each mailbox. So it's almost like gmail: you get fast search, labelling, and a thread-based approach rather than message-based. As with gmail, you can "mute" threads that are not interesting to you, so that if any email arrives later to that thread, you will not see it unless you actively look for it. An old (unmuted) thread receiving a new message jumps back at the top of the list; and you can dismiss stuff as "archived" with a single keystroke, and it will stop polluting your immediate environment, but you can search for it. And it's pretty *fast* with searches (uses Xapian as backend). It's clearly a programmer's MUA -- if you want automatic labelling, you better be prepared to write some Ruby code. I have already written some simple rules that get me the trivial labels for pgsql lists and such; I have also ported the Perl moderation script I used, and the main advantage is that it's a tad faster (though I spent a lot more time writing that function than I'll ever save actually doing moderation -- but hey, I managed to learn some Ruby in the process). It is rather immature though, so I can't recommend it unless you're prepared to deal with that. --
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: > >> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call >> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), >> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps >> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does have an X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on list itself ... is that what you mean, or are you thinking of something else entirely? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be
> working quite well from what I can see ...
Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see
the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive.
Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when
they reach this list.
regards, tom lane
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: > >> Now I made a new gmail account > > Yeah, this approach is interesting. A few days ago I started using Sup > ( http://sup.rubyforge.org/ ) to manage my email Feature wise, I think gnus offers more than the two approaches combined. Speed wise some people use it with some indexing solution, I'm not finding the need yet. And yes, to handle our lists traffic you must have a MUA made for it. That's the reason why I switched, and it's working great here. Regards, -- dim
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... > >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be >> working quite well from what I can see ... > > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive. > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when > they reach this list. But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also > >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... > > > >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be > >> working quite well from what I can see ... > > > > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see > > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive. > > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when > > they reach this list. > > But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group > on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both > arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger > group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ... Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the need for two maybe three, that's it: hackers general www There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate list). A good MUA will deal with any overhead you have. I use Evolution and no its not perfect but I have no problem managing the hordes of email I get from this community. Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
>> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
>> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger
>> group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...
> Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been
> moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the
> need for two maybe three, that's it:
> hackers
> general
> www
I can see the need for small tightly-focused special lists. www is a
good example, and perhaps pgsql-cluster-hackers is too (though I'm less
convinced of that than Marc is). I agree that we've done poorly with
lists with wider charters, mainly because there is so little clarity
about which topics belong where.
I'd keep -bugs and -performance, which seem to be reasonably well
focused, but I can definitely see collapsing most of the other "user"
lists into -general.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA > will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore. So, if one merges all the lists into one (not arguing for / against that), how do you filter? Based on what? Right now, ppl filter based on the X-Mailing-List header, or just the Participant ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Excerpts from Marc G. Fournier's message of jue may 13 23:11:40 -0400 2010: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA > > will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore. > > So, if one merges all the lists into one (not arguing for / against that), > how do you filter? Based on what? Right now, ppl filter based on the > X-Mailing-List header, or just the Participant ... If most of the questions are badly categorized or cross posted to more than one list, how useful a label is the X-Mailing-List header? How useful is to filter on the "pgsql-general" label? --
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > If most of the questions are badly categorized or cross posted to more > than one list, how useful a label is the X-Mailing-List header? How > useful is to filter on the "pgsql-general" label? That is a point, but, IMHO, that is one of our key issues ... we *allow* that sort of cross-posting in the first place ... FreeBSD lists allow cross-posting to no more then 2 mailing lists, I believe, but there is definitely a limit ... ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether? ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better", why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first place? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also > >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure... > > > >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be > >> working quite well from what I can see ... > > > > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see > > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive. > > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when > > they reach this list. > > But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group > on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both > arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger > group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ... Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the need for two maybe three, that's it: hackers general www There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate list). A good MUA will deal with any overhead you have. I use Evolution and no its not perfect but I have no problem managing the hordes of email I get from this community. Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: >> >>> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call >>> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >>> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >>> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), >>> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps >>> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. > > I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does > have an X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on > list itself ... is that what you mean, or are you thinking of > something else entirely? Something else: if automatic classification of articles was in place, there would be need of fewer mailing lists, depending on the quality of the classification. IMHO the problem of handling the big volume of the lists is not solved by splitting into more, since it does not decrease the amount of posts that are interesting from the subscribers perspective. It would only mean that posters are more likely to make mistakes, a possible increase in crossposts or 'my question was not answered there so now I try here' on the sender part, and at the subscriber side bigger chance to miss interesting articles. That my current mailing list setup works for me supports this claim; I did not subscribe to less lists, but managed to decrease the ms spent at 'handling' to an amount that became workable. Though I do not believe algorithmic article classification/ranking to provide a 100% fool proof filter, it might help decreasing the "ms spent per article" more. Take a look at how "carrot2" clusters results from the query "postgresql prepared transactions site:postgresql.org" - http://search.carrot2.org/stable/search?source=web&view=tree&skin=fancy-compact&query=postgresql+prepared+transactions+site%3Apostgresql.org&results=100&algorithm=lingo&EToolsDocumentSource.country=ALL&EToolsDocumentSource.language=ENGLISH&EToolsDocumentSource.safeSearch=false I wonder if a cluster algorithm could tag articles with (multiple) keywords, e.g. 'hackers','prepared transaction','dba' etc etc. I could then make filters or ranking on: hackers AND optimizer -> +10. regards, Yeb Havinga
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we > can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether? Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting is often desirable. If we had a clearer distinction of list topics, I might support such a move, but we don't, so I can't. > ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better", > why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first > place? What would you have us do? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005141005 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkvtWKwACgkQvJuQZxSWSsimYACgrPesGj6yxfo49c6T1PPLrKir oPoAn0b81VrrrqAozXnPXV/5vzlAuxr1 =11EB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically > www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate > list). I don't feel as strong about -advocacy being removed, but we certainly can fold in -sql and -admin. Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into -general as a first step? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005141009 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkvtWbgACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjfAQCg0s9GxUIKnxHjbAWd2XOWxYpk OZMAni62Fpj/PPTE9/qFUNw08une4YgT =OyI0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into > -general as a first step? At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be able to keep up with the traffic of the combined list; so rather than read 100% of the messages from a smaller set, I'll need to pick and choose based on subject line or some such. I get the impression that other people, who read different subsets of the lists, will be forced to a similar change. That may result in either some posts "slipping through the cracks" or in increasing the burden of responding to the posts for those brave few who wade through them all. Personally, I'm not convince that merging current lists will solve more problems than it will create. -Kevin
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > >> ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we >> can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether? > > Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting > is often desirable. If we had a clearer distinction of list topics, I > might support such a move, but we don't, so I can't. But, its the cross-posting, IMHO, that reduces the distinction ... >> ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better", >> why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first >> place? > > What would you have us do? Redirect users ... if user sends a query performance related question to -general, respond back with -general as the CC, To as -performance and a Reply-To header of -performance ... that way those on -general know that its been redirected, but *hopefully* users replying will honor the -performance redirect ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > >> There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically >> www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate >> list). > > I don't feel as strong about -advocacy being removed, but we certainly > can fold in -sql and -admin. Would anyone argue against rolling those > two (sql and admin) into -general as a first step? Question ... we have, right now: -sql : how to write a query -performance : how to improve performance of my queries -admin : how to admin the server -novice : I'm a new user -odbc : how to use ... -php : php related interface questions -interfaces : more general then -odbc why not close down -general so that ppl *have* to use better pick where to post their question ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >> Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into >> -general as a first step? > > At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be able to keep up with the > traffic of the combined list; so rather than read 100% of the > messages from a smaller set, I'll need to pick and choose based on > subject line or some such. I get the impression that other people, > who read different subsets of the lists, will be forced to a similar > change. That may result in either some posts "slipping through the > cracks" or in increasing the burden of responding to the posts for > those brave few who wade through them all. That's what I find with the freebsd-questions list ... there is so much noise in there that I tend to avoid posting to it for fear that my email will just get skip'd over ... I am definitely against *merging* lists ... getting rid of the 'meta list' makes more sense so as to force ppl to *use* the smaller lists then to merge smaller lists and *increase* the noise on one of them ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > -sql : how to write a query > -performance : how to improve performance of my queries > -admin : how to admin the server > -novice : I'm a new user > -odbc : how to use ... > -php : php related interface questions > -interfaces : more general then -odbc > > why not close down -general so that ppl *have* to use better pick > where to post their question ... That's a change I could support. I even think the descriptions are pretty close to what should show. In trying to think what might be missing, I wonder whether we could decrease inappropriate traffic on the -bugs list if we had a "feature request" list, for end users not prepared to discuss things at the level appropriate for -hackers, but who think that PostgreSQL should support some feature they don't see. -Kevin
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> why not close down -general so that ppl *have* to use better pick where to
> post their question ...
I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall" list
for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
More generally, we already have most of the lists that you suggest, and
we already know that people frequently don't find the most appropriate
list for postings. I don't think getting rid of -general would help
that in the least. The way to cut down on misposted traffic is to make
the set of categories smaller and simpler, not to redouble our efforts
to persuade people to use the same or even more categories.
BTW, as far as "no crossposting" goes: usually when I find myself doing
that, it's to redirect a thread that started on -bugs or -general into
-hackers. I don't see the need for that going away.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >>> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: >>> >>>> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call >>>> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >>>> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >>>> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), >>>> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps >>>> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. >> >> I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does have an >> X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on list itself ... >> is that what you mean, or are you thinking of something else entirely? > Something else: if automatic classification of articles was in place, there > would be need of fewer mailing lists, depending on the quality of the > classification. You've mentinoed this serveral time, but what *is* "autoclassication of articles"? or is this something you do on the gmail side of things? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall" > list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories. > > More generally, we already have most of the lists that you > suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the > most appropriate list for postings. I don't think getting rid of > -general would help that in the least. The way to cut down on > misposted traffic is to make the set of categories smaller and > simpler, not to redouble our efforts to persuade people to use the > same or even more categories. Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves you with zero. The description of -general includes: | General discussion area for users. Apart from compile, acceptance | test, and bug problems, most new users will probably only be | interested in this mailing list Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are, in fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit. Perhaps if the description of -general was changed to suggest it *was* a catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things would improve. -Kevin
>> There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
>> www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
>> list).
First off, this is absolutely the wrong list to be discussing management
of PostgreSQL lists. That belongs on pgsql-www. And, I'll point out,
that this completely pointless discussion on the wrong list has been 1/6
of the traffic on -hackers for the last two days. Also, I really don't
see what problem people think they're addressing with these bimonthly
calls for list consolidation. It seems like a solution in search of a
problem.
So it's an exercise in ironic wankitude. Can we please stop it now?
Second, regarding advocacy: no, absolutely not. -advocacy is a working
list and not a virtual water cooler.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote: > >> Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> >>>> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: >>>> >>>>> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they >>>>> call >>>>> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >>>>> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >>>>> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing >>>>> map/kohonen), >>>>> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of >>>>> perhaps >>>>> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. >>> >>> I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does >>> have an X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on >>> list itself ... is that what you mean, or are you thinking of >>> something else entirely? >> Something else: if automatic classification of articles was in place, >> there would be need of fewer mailing lists, depending on the quality >> of the classification. > > You've mentinoed this serveral time, but what *is* "autoclassication > of articles"? or is this something you do on the gmail side of things? I ment classification in the sense of automated as apposed to manual classification by author or subscriber, in the general sense, not linked to any mail client or server. Example: junk mail detection by mail client. After sending my previous mail this morning I looked a bit more into (the faq of) carrot2, which links to LingPipe as a solution for people that like pre-defined classes. LingPipe in fact has a tutorial where they classify a dataset of newsgroups articles, see e.g. http://alias-i.com/lingpipe/demos/tutorial/classify/read-me.html. I suppose it would be interesting to see what could be done with the pg archives. If the archive database itself is publically available, or could be made available I'd be willing to put some time into this (solely on the bases that I'm interested in the outcome, not that I pursue that it'd be used by the pg project, though that'd ofcourse be cool if it turned out that way in the end) regards, Yeb Havinga
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more > specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves > you with zero. The description of -general includes: Agreed ... > Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance > collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are, in > fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit. Perhaps > if the description of -general was changed to suggest it *was* a > catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things would > improve. Can you offer improvd / stronger wording on this ... ? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Josh Berkus wrote: > First off, this is absolutely the wrong list to be discussing management of > PostgreSQL lists. That belongs on pgsql-www. Actually, this is as good a list as any ... -www is for WWW related issues, not mailing list ... be as inappropriate there as it would be on sysadmins, which also doesn't cover mailing lists ... > Second, regarding advocacy: no, absolutely not. -advocacy is a working list > and not a virtual water cooler. BTW, and even I totally forgot about it, but we do have a virtual water cooler already: pgsql-chat ... 224 subscribers currently, just nobody uses it ... In fact, I just removed / changed to BCC -hackers so that all further discussions on this part of the thread will be on -chat ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Second, regarding advocacy: no, absolutely not. -advocacy is a working list > and not a virtual water cooler. +1. I would find it very difficult to manage having -advocacy thrown into -general. If folks think that information isn't getting wide enough distribution, that's one thing. But it is an important working group, even if there's not a ton of traffic all the time on it. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me
Kevin Grittner wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall" > > list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories. > > > > More generally, we already have most of the lists that you > > suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the > > most appropriate list for postings. I don't think getting rid of > > -general would help that in the least. The way to cut down on > > misposted traffic is to make the set of categories smaller and > > simpler, not to redouble our efforts to persuade people to use the > > same or even more categories. > > Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more > specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves > you with zero. The description of -general includes: > > | General discussion area for users. Apart from compile, acceptance > | test, and bug problems, most new users will probably only be > | interested in this mailing list > > Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance > collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are, > in fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit. > Perhaps if the description of -general was changed to suggest it > *was* a catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things > would improve. FYI, I usually email new people privately that cross-posting a question can cause the question to be ignored. They usually respond positively and avoid it in the future. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote: > FYI, I usually email new people privately that cross-posting a question > can cause the question to be ignored. They usually respond positively > and avoid it in the future. We all have our own methods ... for instance, I just CC'd this to -chat with a -BCC to -hackers so that follow ups will go over there (since Josh is right, this thread doesn't belong on -hackers) ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Tom Lane wrote: > I can see the need for small tightly-focused special lists. How about a list devoted to discussions about reorganizing the lists? It would get plenty of traffic, and then I could not subscribe to that and have that many less messages to read. There is only one viable solution to reduce list traffic: ban forever everyone who top-posts or doesn't trim what they quote. Maybe some other old-school Usenet rules too--can we ban those with incorrectly formatted signatures and finally add proper bozo tagging? Praise Kibo. Seriously though, I file admin/general/performance into one user oriented folder, hackers/committers into a second, and all the non-code ones (advocacy, www, docs) into a third. I don't think there's any way to restructure those lists that will improve life for people who try to keep up with most of them. I was traveling yesterday and busy today, and now I'm 350 messages behind. No amount of rijiggering the lists will change the fact that there's just that much activity happening around PostgreSQL. You can move the messages around, but the same number are going to show up, and people who want to keep up with everything will have to cope with that. The best you can do is get better support in your mail program for wiping out whole threads at once, once you've realized you're not interested in them. The only real argument to keep some more targeted lists is for the benefit of the people who subscribe to them, not we the faithful, so that they can have something that isn't a firehose of messages to sort through. Is it helpful to novices that they can subscribe to a list when they won't be overwhelmed by traffic, and can ask questions without being too concerned about being harassed for being newbies? Probably. Are there enough people interesting in performance topics alone to justify a list targeted just to them? Certainly; I was only on that list for a long time before joining any of the others. Are the marketing oriented people subscribed only to advocacy and maybe announce happy to avoid the rest of the lists? You bet. Folding, say, performance or admin into general, one idea that pops up sometimes, doesn't help those people--now they can only get the firehose--and it doesn't help me, either. If you can keep up with general, whether or not the other lists are also included in that or not doesn't really matter. Ditto for hackers and the things you might try and split out of it. It's just going to end up with more cross posting, and the only thing I hate more than a mailbox full of messages is discovering a chunk of them are dupes because of that. I might like to see, for example, a user mailing list devoted strictly to replication/clustering work with PostgreSQL. That's another topic I think that people are going to want to ask about more in the near future without getting overwhelmed. But, again, that's for their benefit. I'll have to subscribe to that, too, and in reality it will probably increase the amount of messages I read, because people will ask stuff there that's already been covered on other lists, and vice-versa. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Is it > helpful to novices that they can subscribe to a list when they won't be > overwhelmed by traffic, and can ask questions without being too concerned > about being harassed for being newbies? Probably. Only if they aren't hoping to get answers... What percentage of the hackers and experts who trawl -general for questions to answer are subscribed to -novices? -general isn't subscriber-only posts is it? > Are there enough people > interesting in performance topics alone to justify a list targeted just to > them? Certainly; I was only on that list for a long time before joining any > of the others. If they're interested in performance topics and they're not subscribed to -general then they're missing *most* of what they're interested in which doesn't take place on -performance. And most of what's on -performance ends up being non-performance related questions anyways. I think what I'm getting at is that we shouldn't have any lists for traffic which could reasonably happen on -general. If it's a usage question about postgres then it belongs in the same place regardless of what feature or aspect of the usage it is -- otherwise it'll always be some random subset of the relevant messages. This won't actually cut down on list traffic for me and Simon but it would help get people answers since they'll be posting to the same place as everyone else. > Are the marketing oriented people subscribed only to > advocacy and maybe announce happy to avoid the rest of the lists? You bet. Well yeah. This is an actual discernible distinction. As evidence I'llnote that there is no advocacy traffic on -general or other mailing lists. -- greg
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Is it >> helpful to novices that they can subscribe to a list when they won't be >> overwhelmed by traffic, and can ask questions without being too concerned >> about being harassed for being newbies? Probably. > > Only if they aren't hoping to get answers... What percentage of the > hackers and experts who trawl -general for questions to answer are > subscribed to -novices? > > -general isn't subscriber-only posts is it? All our lists are, yes ... *but* ... the 'subscriber list' is cross list, in that if you are subscribed to one, you can post to all ... > If they're interested in performance topics and they're not subscribed > to -general then they're missing *most* of what they're interested in > which doesn't take place on -performance. And most of what's on > -performance ends up being non-performance related questions anyways. And IMHO, that is as much a fault of the 'old timers' on the lists as the newbies ... if nobody redirects / loosely enforces the mandates of the various lists, newbies aren't going to learn to post to more appropriate ones ... Personally, my experience with large lists is that if there is a smaller, more focused list, I'll post there first, to avoid being lost in the noise ... and, I will re-post to a more general list *if* and only if I'm unable to get an answer from where I posted my original ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The only real argument to keep some more targeted lists is for the benefit > of the people who subscribe to them, not we the faithful, so that they can > have something that isn't a firehose of messages to sort through. Is it > helpful to novices that they can subscribe to a list when they won't be > overwhelmed by traffic, and can ask questions without being too concerned > about being harassed for being newbies? Probably. Are there enough people > interesting in performance topics alone to justify a list targeted just to > them? Certainly; I was only on that list for a long time before joining any > of the others. Are the marketing oriented people subscribed only to > advocacy and maybe announce happy to avoid the rest of the lists? You bet. > > Folding, say, performance or admin into general, one idea that pops up > sometimes, doesn't help those people--now they can only get the > firehose--and it doesn't help me, either. If you can keep up with general, > whether or not the other lists are also included in that or not doesn't > really matter. Ditto for hackers and the things you might try and split out > of it. It's just going to end up with more cross posting, and the only > thing I hate more than a mailbox full of messages is discovering a chunk of > them are dupes because of that. +1. > I might like to see, for example, a user mailing list devoted strictly to > replication/clustering work with PostgreSQL. That's another topic I think > that people are going to want to ask about more in the near future without > getting overwhelmed. But, again, that's for their benefit. I'll have to > subscribe to that, too, and in reality it will probably increase the amount > of messages I read, because people will ask stuff there that's already been > covered on other lists, and vice-versa. Yep. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote: > If they're interested in performance topics and they're not > subscribed to -general then they're missing *most* of what they're > interested in which doesn't take place on -performance. Well, I for one can't currently suck the end of the fire hose which is -general, and would be less able to do so should other lists be folded into it. So I lurk on -bugs, -performance, -admin, and others -- not to glean information so much as to attempt to respond in areas where I feel I might be able to be helpful and, with a bit of luck, take some of the burden off of those who do the most to help people on these lists. Combining lists will only make it harder for me to attempt to assist in this way. > And most of what's on -performance ends up being non-performance > related questions anyways. I don't believe you. Scanning this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-05/index.php I see a few non-performance questions, but they're clearly a small fraction of the traffic. > I think what I'm getting at is that we shouldn't have any lists > for traffic which could reasonably happen on -general. I think that's exactly backwards -- we shouldn't have any traffic on -general for issues which could reasonably happen in another list. You can always configure your email to combine lists into a common folder upon receipt. -Kevin
[moved to -chat] On Fri, 14 May 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I think that's exactly backwards -- we shouldn't have any traffic on > -general for issues which could reasonably happen in another list. You > can always configure your email to combine lists into a common folder > upon receipt. *Exactly* ... the thought that we should increase the volume on any one of the lists seems counter-productive, but, I guess is the @postgresql.org mailing lists are the only ones that someone participats into, maybe they hae enough time to keep up on *all* of the email ... ? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > And IMHO, that is as much a fault of the 'old timers' on the lists as the > newbies ... if nobody redirects / loosely enforces the mandates of the > various lists, newbies aren't going to learn to post to more appropriate > ones ... > oh! yeah! that's easy... you say: hey maybe that list is better for your question... and suddenly you're a piece of crap that should never answer a mail most people are not prepared to understand the concept of more than one list for project... what i personally do in the spanish list is to read (and when i can) answer questions that have the less or none answers first, then those that Alvaro has not commented yet and last if i have time the other ones and then i read the subjects of the threads in the other lists if something pop up read the thread and "mark as read" everything else -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >> >> And IMHO, that is as much a fault of the 'old timers' on the lists as the >> newbies ... if nobody redirects / loosely enforces the mandates of the >> various lists, newbies aren't going to learn to post to more appropriate >> ones ... >> > > oh! yeah! that's easy... you say: hey maybe that list is better for > your question... and suddenly you're a piece of crap that should never > answer a mail > > most people are not prepared to understand the concept of more than > one list for project... Apparently you don't use very many large projects ... FreeBSD has 20+ lists, dedicated to various aspects of both end user and developer ... I imagine Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half dozen or more ... etc ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
> Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half > dozen or more ... etc ... MySQL has a bunch of lists, none of which get much traffic. Honestly, they should probably be combined. -- Rob Wultsch
[redirected to -chat] On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Wultsch wrote: >> Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half >> dozen or more ... etc ... > > MySQL has a bunch of lists, none of which get much traffic. Honestly, > they should probably be combined. Except, when you do post, ppl see it ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com> wrote: >> Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half >> dozen or more ... etc ... > > MySQL has a bunch of lists, none of which get much traffic. Honestly, > they should probably be combined. > > -- > Rob Wultsch "They" was referring to the various low traffic MySQL lists which in my opinion does not work. As far as Linux, when I briefly subscribed to the kernel mailing list there was such a volume of traffic that it was difficult to manage as a noob. I do not have an opinion about PG. I think that those two examples could be seen as how not to run email lists effectively. -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@gmail.com
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >> most people are not prepared to understand the concept of more than >> one list for project... > > Apparently you don't use very many large projects ... FreeBSD has 20+ lists, > dedicated to various aspects of both end user and developer ... I imagine > Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half > dozen or more ... etc ... Sure, if we have distinctions which make sense then having separate lists makes sense. Linux has separate lists for different drivers, different parts of the kernel, projects to improve the kernel in various specific ways (latency, etc). I'm all for having a list dedicated to infrastructure (oddly named -www here) and a list dedicated to printing flyers and arranging conferences (-advocacy) since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc would work fine if the traffic warranted them. But some of the lists we have now are 99% overlap with each other -- I claim because the definitions are meaningless. What part of postgres discussion (aside from this thread) *don't* relate in some way to SQL? Or administration? Or performance? Most performance problems end up being solved by adjusting SQL or changing GUCs. Mot administration questions are originally posed as general help questions. If you're subscribed to these lists you get a random, fairly small, subset of discussion related these topics. Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more sensible division that allows most of the traffic related to the subtopics to actually go there. It would have to be a division so clearcut that anyone who doesn't follow could reasonably be blamed for not following etiquette. That's simply not true with the current divisions. -- greg
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > Sure, if we have distinctions which make sense then having separate > lists makes sense. Linux has separate lists for different drivers, > different parts of the kernel, projects to improve the kernel in > various specific ways (latency, etc). I'm all for having a list > dedicated to infrastructure (oddly named -www here) Actually, infrastructure is appropriately discussed on -sysadmins ... web is on -www ... tends to be a bit of overlap since -sysadmins was added later, and prior to that we did discuss on -www ... > since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc > would work fine if the traffic warranted them. I don't agree with the comment about 'if traffic warranted them' though ... the fact that there is very little traffic should be what makes them attractive / useful ... you don't have to weed through alot of posts to find the odbc/ecpg related ones ... > Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more sensible division that allows > most of the traffic related to the subtopics to actually go there. It > would have to be a division so clearcut that anyone who doesn't follow > could reasonably be blamed for not following etiquette. That's simply > not true with the current divisions. how about something -sql vs -tuning ... ? -tuning replacing -performance, which I do agree could be sql *or* server ... where -tuning would be more obviously server related ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On 5/27/10 8:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Lists like -ecpg or -odbc
> would work fine if the traffic warranted them.
A low-traffic list is a feature, not a bug. Most people don't *like*
subscribing to lists which have 80posts/day.
> But some of the lists we have now are 99% overlap with each other -- I
> claim because the definitions are meaningless. What part of postgres
> discussion (aside from this thread) *don't* relate in some way to SQL?
> Or administration? Or performance? Most performance problems end up
> being solved by adjusting SQL or changing GUCs.
This is a set theory fallacy. While most performance issues are
administration issues as well, it is NOT therefore true that most
administration issues are also performance issues. In fact, I'd say
that the -performance list does an excellent job of sticking to
troubleshooting performance issues only. And for someone who has a
performance issue, and does not want to field 100 emails about "can't
install Postgre", that's a feature.
> Mot administration
> questions are originally posed as general help questions. If you're
> subscribed to these lists you get a random, fairly small, subset of
> discussion related these topics.
Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30
posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on
-performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people
don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints
-- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to
subscribe -- all the time.
Having fewer posts on any particular list is *desireable*. It's a good
thing. It's *only* a problem when a bug report or user question goes
unanswered because the list is unattended. And so far, I've only seen
one report of that.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 5/27/10 8:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Mot administration
>> questions are originally posed as general help questions. If you're
>> subscribed to these lists you get a random, fairly small, subset of
>> discussion related these topics.
> Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30
> posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on
> -performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people
> don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints
> -- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to
> subscribe -- all the time.
> Having fewer posts on any particular list is *desireable*. It's a good
> thing. It's *only* a problem when a bug report or user question goes
> unanswered because the list is unattended. And so far, I've only seen
> one report of that.
Well, there's no free lunch. If we have a whole lot of "small" lists
there are going to be two big downsides: fewer people reading each list
(hence fewer answers), and many more arguably-misclassified postings,
thus diluting the theoretical targetedness of the lists.
If you want good answers to questions you need to post them in a forum
where there are enough people to ensure someone will know the answer
(and have the time/interest to respond). People who want answers and
don't want to have to read other discussions should consider obtaining
commercial support.
regards, tom lane
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue may 27 14:11:51 -0400 2010: > Only someone who is a postgresql developer would consider 15-30 > posts/day "small". For most of our user base, the level of traffic on > -performance, -sql, and -general is already too high and many people > don't subscribe to these lists because it is too high. I get complaints > -- and people personal-sending me questions because they don't want to > subscribe -- all the time. People can post without being subscribed, and most people around here will CC them when they reply. That's supposed to be a feature of our lists. Maybe when you receive such a question you can forward it to a list CCing the person. Not that I disagree with your opinion that a smaller list is desirable. I think collapsing lists into -general or whatever would be a terrible idea. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
> Well, there's no free lunch. If we have a whole lot of "small" lists
> there are going to be two big downsides: fewer people reading each list
> (hence fewer answers), and many more arguably-misclassified postings,
> thus diluting the theoretical targetedness of the lists.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that people *are* gettings answers
on the -sql and -performance lists, that those lists are very busy, and
that consolidating them with other lists would just drive people away
due to traffic volume. And that nobody who is suggesting list
consolidation has presented any evidence to the contrary other than a
*single* missed bug report. Data is not the plural of anecdote.
I'm *not* suggesting that we create more lists just because, either.
Again, this whole discussion is a solution in search of a problem.
Someone wants to mess with our list organization just because they are
bored. If they're that bored, I understand that the web team could use
some help. Or they could review patches.
We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are.
+1 ... wasn't the point I thought you were trying to make, but I'm
good with not changing things.
regards, tom lane
On 5/27/10 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are.
>
> +1 ... wasn't the point I thought you were trying to make, but I'm
> good with not changing things.
Yeah, that's because I was responding to the suggestion that 5 of our
lists should be collapsed into 'general' as the One Uber-List.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 5/27/10 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >>> We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are. >> >> +1 ... wasn't the point I thought you were trying to make, but I'm >> good with not changing things. > > Yeah, that's because I was responding to the suggestion that 5 of our > lists should be collapsed into 'general' as the One Uber-List. > i think not all should be collapsed but at least -novice, IMHO -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL