Alex Shulgin writes:
> Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers
> to be treated specially, e.g:
[...]
> How does that sound?
Very much like what debbugs does already.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Supp
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> The problem is that this one doesn't have the
> Content-Disposition: attachment
> line in the MIME header. I don't know what we can do about it.
It's sent with an inline attachment AFAICT, some MA will make it easy
to process the attachment and some others will just make
On 01/19/2012 01:41 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote:
With the proposed approach it would only take me to include
@fest comment "Patch applies cleanly"
and possibly
@fest status Needs Review
to update the patch status and that'd be it.
It will be easy if you get it right. My point was that it's w
Excerpts from Alex Shulgin's message of jue ene 19 15:41:54 -0300 2012:
> PS: yes, I could just copy message id from the sent mail in my MUA, but
> I like to make sure links I post aren't broke, so still I'll need to
> wait until archives catches up to double check.
I find this a bad excuse. If
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 01/19/2012 12:59 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote:
>
>> Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers
>> to be treated specially, e.g:
>>
>> @fest add-to-current
>>
>> to add new patch to the commit fest currently in progress, or
>>
>> @fest add-to-ne
On 01/19/2012 12:59 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote:
Greg Smith writes:
One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database
of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on
"Add recent submission", and anything matching my e-mail address
appears with a checkbox
Greg Smith writes:
> One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database
> of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on
> "Add recent submission", and anything matching my e-mail address
> appears with a checkbox next to it. Click on the patch submissi
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar ene 17 22:23:13 -0300 2012:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
> >
> > On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> > > one that
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
>
> On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> > one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
> > attachments that ha
On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
>> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>> I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
>>> don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on y
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>
> On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
> >> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >>> I'll also point out that the process f
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ene 17 14:24:05 -0300 2012:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> >> one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
patch form.
Note that the original complaint was tha
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
>> one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
>> attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
>> downlo
On 17/01/2012 18:10, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>>> My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
>>> case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or
On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>> My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
>> case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have
>> the full thread handy.
>
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
downloadable separately).
Are you rea
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
> URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
> patch form.
Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer,
the current s
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
> > don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal
> > machine for months, is also very
On 01/16/2012 05:25 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
patch form. And momentum toward doing that just keeps going up, even
among longer term contributors who we
On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail.
4. Add a comment to the patch, type "Review" with the messageID, and
ideally a short summary comment of the review.
This is the time consuming part that would benefit the most from some
automation. The mes
Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of lun ene 16 18:37:59 -0300 2012:
> > I mean,
> > if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please
> > complain to Google.
>
> But after digging the message-id out of gmail and entering it into the
> commitfest app, the resulting link is brok
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012:
>
>> Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to
>> use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a
>> review of a patch
> I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? Give
> me a break. So the only real complain point here is message-id, which
> normally people don't care about and don't even know they exist. So
> they have to learn about it.
The complaint is that the reviewer is expected to
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012:
> Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to
> use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a
> review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer
> "astoni
On 1/14/12 8:44 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Second, e-mail provides some level of validation that patches being
> submitted are coming from the person they claim. We currently reject
> patches that are only shared with the community on the web, via places
> like github. The process around this mailin
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 18:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the
ability
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith wrote:
>> On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the
>>> ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the
>> ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly
>> threaded.
>
>
> Next you'll be saying we should have so
On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the
ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly
threaded.
Next you'll be saying we should have some sort of web application to
help with the whole review process,
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 05:44, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 01/14/2012 10:49 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>>
>> So lets make it easy for the patch submitter to start the process. I
>> propose that we have a page in the CF application where people can
>> upload/attach the patch, and the app posts the patch t
On 01/14/2012 10:49 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
So lets make it easy for the patch submitter to start the process. I
propose that we have a page in the CF application where people can
upload/attach the patch, and the app posts the patch to -hackers and
uses the post URL to create the CF entry.
32 matches
Mail list logo
