Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155E81337BD7; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:16:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96336-01-7; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:16:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798A41337B5D; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:16:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p27IGVeh009161; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:16:31 -0500 (EST) To: Thom Brown cc: David Fetter , Robert Haas , pgsql-docs , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Sync rep doc corrections In-reply-to: References: <20110307175106.GA12122@fetter.org> Comments: In-reply-to Thom Brown message dated "Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:34:48 +0530" Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:16:31 -0500 Message-ID: <9160.1299521791@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201103/24 X-Sequence-Number: 6457 Thom Brown writes: > On 7 March 2011 23:21, David Fetter wrote: >> As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly >> News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check, >> so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least >> CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers. I'm not certain that David's convenience should be the exclusive consideration when deciding what goes where ;-) > I cross-posted as it's a docs change, but I want to invite the > critical eye of those who dev'd it. Okay, so doc patches should go > exclusively to the -hackers list? Last time I recall some disparity > surrounding what I should be doing. If we do that then it becomes worth wondering what the -docs list is for at all. Maybe we *should* get rid of it; I dunno. I see your point about how the factual issues involved in a docs change ought to be vetted on -hackers, but on the other hand the traffic on -hackers is so high already that I'm not happy about folding another list with a reasonably distinct charter into it. regards, tom lane