From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200805071550.m47Foih06942@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists
In-Reply-To: <34d269d40805070837q19f1144eu8c316fa1cf6d8780@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> A big part of my problem with the split is if there is a discussion
> taking place on -hackers I want to be able to reply to the discussion
> and say "well, here is what I was thinking".  Sending it to -patches
> first waiting for it to hit the archive so I can link to it in my
> reply on -hackers seems pointless and convoluted.

Yea, that is a problem.  Adding a new patch to patches while discussing
on hackers is a receipe for confusion.

> But if thats what you want, thats what ill try to do from now on :)
> 
> For instance the patch Tom reviewed of mine yesterday only -hackers
> was copied, so I maintained that but also added -patches because I was
> sending in a patch...

Yea, sending to both is probably the worst. I would just post to hackers
and mention you sent a new version of the patch to patches --- they
usually show up the same time.

> I think It will be an ongoing problem though especially for new people
> as they probably wont understand the "logical" split...

Yep, I can hardly explain it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +