All,
Several of us hashed this out at the Code Sprint. While the solution we
arrived at doesn't completely satisfy Greg, several others would be fine with
just having a version of pgsql-patches (pgsql-patches-lite?) that we could
subscribe to to get the messages without the attachments.
Also,
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
> > attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
> > a website, replacing it with
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?
Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but,
> > I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually
> solve most
> > of my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to
> find a better solution.
> > The patches announcements themselves would still be basically
> > invisible within the community.
>
> I'm with Greg on this o
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:
I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of
my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better
solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically
invisible within the community.
How do
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:28:31PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
> weekly (or other time period) digest of patches po
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
w
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to.
I think reply-to is just a single address. It may work in some mailers though.
Regardless the issue is that someone may send a personal message and be
surprised when it's broadcast. You can alw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped
of attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will
ha
* Greg Stark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my
> original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution.
> The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within
> the community.
I'm
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that
> > one
> > both ...
>
> Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like
> emacs vs vi that stirs up religious deb
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
> >> like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
> >>
> >
> > If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
> > If so, that seems like a p
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>
> >> If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
> >> add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
> >> discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
> >> which also gets its sh
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.
that is
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
> >
> >> However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
> >> reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
> >> good too. I myself subscribe to -comm
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
Alternatively, people
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summ
Marc,
You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering?
Many spam filters give points for "reply-to address does not match from
address".
--Josh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:
However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 01:04:09AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this
> 'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ...
>
> Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is "the stripper", with the end
> result for
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
>> BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
>> accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
> Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch
On Mon, 9 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
My complaint is that -patches serves to
a) si
On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:
> Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
>
> BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
> accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
Alternatively, people could jus
Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:
BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.
My complaint is that -patches serves to
a) siphon off some of the most technical dis
26 matches
Mail list logo
