Aidan Van Dyk wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080409 10:40]: > > > This doesn't seem particularly hard, just a matter of following the > > relevant mailing lists (mostly -patches, but various offenders send > > patches elsewhere) and adding links to the current wiki page. > > I've often been confused that discussion seem to seamlessly be on either > -patches, or -hackers. From the understanding I got on the mailing > list pages (http://archives.postgresql.org/), it seems like -patches is > supposed to be only for patches, and -hackers for the general > discussion, issues, features, etc on anything development related. > > But from observation, it seems like -patches and -hackers are different > lists of the same thing, except that -patches has a much bigger message > size limit. > > Is that the intended operational status? > > If not, would it be possible to some how force reply-to of pg-patches to > -hackers? I know, that blows chunks with the usual mailling-list > reply-to issues, but it would make -hackers the single place to follow > discussions, and maybe make -patches a more pointed "list of things to > track". > > Tracking 2 lists really isn't a big deal - I'm guessing most others dump > both -patches and -hackers into the same mailbox anyways too, but it > does seem like the 2 lists are a needless split as they currently are > used.
Yea, the split is kind of odd. I think the idea is that discussion about patch details happens on 'patches' and more general discussion on hackers, though it doesn't work that way all the time. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers