On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Andrew Gierth > <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >> There's a fairly serious readability problem when someone has posted a >> patch as a subthread of some more general discussion. For example, look >> at the "adaptive ndistinct estimator" patch: it's not obvious which >> attachment is the actual patch, and whether the latest email has >> anything to do with the patch is entirely arbitrary. > > I think that the inability to put each message in context, with > "metadata" comments associated with individual messages is a serious > regression in functionality. I hope it is fixed soon. I raised this > issue at the earliest opportunity, when Magnus privately sought > feedback early last year.
I agree. Starting a new email thread for each patch version is, IMHO, a complete non-starter. It's 100% contrary to what has generally been advocated as best-practice up until now, and it is basically saying we should alter our workflow because the tool can't cope with the one we've got. The whole point of having home-grown tools for this stuff is that they're supposed to work with the way we already like to do things instead of forcing us to work in new ways. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
