> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Treat
> Sent: 23 August 2006 04:16
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Tom Lane
> Subject: Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [HACKERS]
> [
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert Treat wrote:
... some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone
combine all pg mail to one folder?)
Yes, all mine are in one folder, and I use elm ME. It is faster than a
GUI email client.
All my PG li
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:15 , Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
revert to the old way?
Since almost the
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> ... some other tricks people have to make emails more manageable (anyone
>> combine all pg mail to one folder?)
> Yes, all mine are in one folder, and I use elm ME. It is faster than a
> GUI email client.
All my PG list mail go
I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around
with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www,
and -slaves emails but the slaves traffic was too high so I had to split it
back out). As someone subscribed to a good dozen pg lists, I've a
On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
> > either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
> > revert to the old way?
>
> Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I ha
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Then why bother with two different lists?
>>
>> If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the
>> focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them
>> and get rid of the problem?
> I
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:20:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading
> > doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at
> > all.
>
> Yeah, that experiment hasn't se
> On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Then why bother with two different lists?
> >
> > If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the
> > focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them
> > and get rid of the problem?
Di
> >>> I'd vote for reverting to the old way. Anyone serious
> about hacking
> >>> should be on both lists.
> >
> > Then why bother with two different lists?
> >
> > If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they
> do), and
> > the focus of both lists is developers, then why not jus
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers,
threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this
refers to at all.
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have another ide
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Then why bother with two different lists?
If developers need to be on both list (which I beleive they do), and the
focus of both lists is developers, then why not just remove one of them
and get rid of the problem?
I wouldn't argue with that. It would be at least equally
> > >>Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers,
> > >>threading doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this
> > >>refers to at all.
> > >
> > >Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
> > >either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you j
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
revert to the old way?
Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering
both lists into the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
> either. Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
> revert to the old way?
Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering
both lists into the same folder, so they pretty mu
Tom, all:
I thought the strategy was to provide a way to subscribe to
pgsql-patches, get the text of the messages, and not get the
attachments. Was that techincally infeasable?
--Josh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list
Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading
> >>doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at
> >>all.
> >
> >Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work al
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading
doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at
all.
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have a
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ever since pgsql-patches replies started going to -hackers, threading
> doesn't work anymore, so I for one can't tell what this refers to at
> all.
Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
either. Do you have another idea to
19 matches
Mail list logo
