Thread: 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
Attachment
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 ... -- Álvaro 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
Attachment
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 Mönchengladbach 12080 USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209 Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: 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/