From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
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, 27 May 2010 16:38:44 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimEmSQiSPXRmH1aFqvBIwFgaGuxb8C_Fb5v6oS_@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005150337140.22297@hub.org>
References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us>
<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>
<1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com>
<4913.1273790764@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4BECC5E5.1000901@2ndquadrant.com>
<AANLkTin4XpFVH0pTCwaRywGseIeVLVlNLcAJ6T_2ggzr@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005141035290.22297@hub.org>
<AANLkTimcf9sCu5hBdiDdpXbOQDZPsPa_uNec_SMtro47@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005150337140.22297@hub.org>
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
>> most people are not prepared to understand the concept of more than
>> one list for project...
>
> Apparently you don't use very many large projects ... FreeBSD has 20+ lists,
> dedicated to various aspects of both end user and developer ... I imagine
> Linux has *as many if not more* ... MySQL, if memory servers, has a half
> dozen or more ... etc ...
Sure, if we have distinctions which make sense then having separate
lists makes sense. Linux has separate lists for different drivers,
different parts of the kernel, projects to improve the kernel in
various specific ways (latency, etc). I'm all for having a list
dedicated to infrastructure (oddly named -www here) and a list
dedicated to printing flyers and arranging conferences (-advocacy)
since those topics are usually well defined. Lists like -ecpg or -odbc
would work fine if the traffic warranted them.
But some of the lists we have now are 99% overlap with each other -- I
claim because the definitions are meaningless. What part of postgres
discussion (aside from this thread) *don't* relate in some way to SQL?
Or administration? Or performance? Most performance problems end up
being solved by adjusting SQL or changing GUCs. Mot administration
questions are originally posed as general help questions. If you're
subscribed to these lists you get a random, fairly small, subset of
discussion related these topics.
Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more sensible division that allows
most of the traffic related to the subtopics to actually go there. It
would have to be a division so clearcut that anyone who doesn't follow
could reasonably be blamed for not following etiquette. That's simply
not true with the current divisions.
--
greg
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: gsstark@mit.edu, scrappy@hub.org, jaime@2ndquadrant.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, magnus@hagander.net, 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: <AANLkTimEmSQiSPXRmH1aFqvBIwFgaGuxb8C_Fb5v6oS_@mail.gmail.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