Tom Lane <t...@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
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
