From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: List traffic
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131912160.22297@hub.org>
References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005111054340.85296@hub.org>
<1273598624-sup-3654@alvh.no-ip.org>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005111431310.85296@hub.org>
<AANLkTikMGofzZhcnIvcKPTjXepMKUVAaU1IQDxRHkDuk@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilm5weCupZ6WPTixnJynS_djM_qRJfpGK6ZC6f3@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131503030.22297@hub.org>
<AANLkTimYX6OKsUxXZistxB62wMqDztejhK45HcnjBrPA@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131740270.22297@hub.org>
<20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131912160.22297@hub.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
> >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
> >
> >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be
> >> working quite well from what I can see ...
> >
> > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see
> > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive.
> > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when
> > they reach this list.
>
> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger
> group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...
Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been
moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the
need for two maybe three, that's it:
hackers
general
www
There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
list).
A good MUA will deal with any overhead you have. I use Evolution and no
its not perfect but I have no problem managing the hordes of email I get
from this community.
Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA
will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, scrappy@hub.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, magnus@hagander.net, gsstark@mit.edu, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, bruce@momjian.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: List traffic
In-Reply-To: <1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox