Subject: Proposal to remove some mailing lists

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:49:03 +0200

At the developers meeting in Ottawa, I was tasked to work on proposals to 
reduce the number of mailing lists.  For those who don't know the background:  
It has been brought up for some time in various contexts that there are too 
many PostgreSQL mailing lists with unclear purposes, leading to confusions 
about where to post (and cross-posting) as well as the effect that developers 
and contributors will essentially have to subscribe to all lists anyway to 
keep informed.  For example, many user issues might be somewhere in the 
middle of administration and SQL, making the distinction between these two 
lists appear less relevant, and many patches need discussion on hackers, so 
some have suggested merging the patches and hackers mailing lists.

Before we get to those more intrusive issues, I want to start with a few 
simple cases.

* pgsql-ports

This list receives very little traffic.  Most posts are on topic if you 
believe the mailing list descriptions, but would in practice better appear on 
other mailing lists, for example: "It doesn't compile on NormalUnix" -> 
pgsql-bugs, "How can I add support for StrangeUnix" -> 
pgsql-hackers, "Building PostgreSQL fails" -> pgsql-general or thereabouts.  
Most posts of those types already appear on other mailing lists anyway.  I 
believe posting to pgsql-ports doesn't give users better help, and reading 
pgsql-ports isn't very useful for monitoring porting issues either.

I suggest retiring that mailing list and asking users to post their issues to 
other mailing lists.

* pgsql-cygwin

This list receives almost no traffic anymore, and many are not on topic 
(confusing Cygwin with Windows in general).  Obviously, running PostgreSQL on 
Cygwin isn't the hottest topic anymore.

I suggest retiring this mailing list and redirecting users to other mailing 
lists, using the pattern I described above for pgsql-ports.

* pgsql-interfaces

This list used to be for ODBC, JDBC, and friends.  The former two have had 
their own forums for a long time now, so we are left with some 
undefined "friends".  Traffic is now at 10 to 20 posts a month.

The posts are now a mix of announcements about interfaces maintained elsewhere 
(e.g., new version of DBD::Pg or Ruby driver), some libpq usage questions, 
off-topic SQL questions, porting issues, and some completely unrelated 
PostgreSQL stuff.  It has become basically useless to read the list except 
for very dedicated PostgreSQL question-answerers.

I suggest retiring this mailing list.  There are better mailing lists for 
almost all posts here.

How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done.  I 
have some idle thoughts:

- Send an announcement to the mailing list that it will be closed in 2 weeks 
or a month.  Perhaps some people will protest.

- Drop all subscriptions.  (Of course we should *not* subscribe them 
automatically to some other list.)

- Depending on the capabilities of the mail system, an informative bounce, 
perhaps pointing to the web site, should be sent for some time after the 
mailing list is shut down.

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:57:43 -0400

Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]> writes:
> [ retire pgsql-ports, pgsql-cygwin, and pgsql-interfaces ]

+1 for those, but what about the patches/hackers merger?

pgsql-www doesn't seem like the right place to take a decision on
any such changes though.  I think it really needs to be proposed
in pgsql-general.

> How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done.

We have a whole category of "inactive mailing lists" on the archives...

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Raymond O'Donnell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:24:16 +0100

> Before we get to those more intrusive issues, I want to start with a few 

Could I suggest adding pgsql-php to the candidates for culling. It gets 
very little traffic, and on fact we see more PHP-related stuff on 
-general than on -php.

Ray.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
[email-masked]
Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:46:06 -0400

> very little traffic, and on fact we see more PHP-related stuff on

+1. While the questions on that list due tend to be pretty on-topic, they 
would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more quickly 
as well. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:57:10 -0700

> would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more quickly 

Except that General is an extremely active list and may cause those
subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good.

If we want to get rid of pgsql-php lets do it for something at least
directional, say pgsql-webdev a list dedicated to web developers using
PostgreSQL.

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:13:18 -0400

> subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good.

Before we debate the merits of proposals Peter didn't make, can we
settle the discussion on the ones he did?  We all have our favourite
retirement candidates (I, for instance, would like for me to be
retired).  But we have a particular proposal before us, and it'd be
nice to handle it first.

On that note: I agree with Peter's proposal.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:02:16 -0400

On Thursday 03 July 2008 11:57:10 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more
> > quickly as well.
>

This presumes one only uses php for web development... really it can be used 
for scripting and gui applications as well. Heck, I even heard of some 
company trying to use it for database procedural work.  

More on point, why would you seperate web developer questions from other 
questions? And how? Not being able to connect to postgres from a webserver is 
pretty much the same issue as not connecting from anything else. Or what 
about someone using dbd:pg from a script, vs. someone using it to write a 
cgi? 

*shrug*

I'm subscribed to both, so it doesnt affect me much, but I don't see much 
benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty low 
anyway)

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:27:41 -0700

> This presumes one only uses php for web development... 

It does? I was assuming that we would have rails, drupal, catalyst
etc... all asked there.

> really it can be used 

How do I do X with ORM Y and why does PostgreSQL react with Z.

People on general may or may not care. People on wwwdev may.

> benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty low 

I am not arguing that we should keep pgsql-php as much as the idea of
dumping people on to general which imo is abused way to much as it is.

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:51:54 -0400

Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> writes:
> settle the discussion on the ones he did?

This is not the list to be taking any final decisions on --- it doesn't
have a large enough readership to presume to speak for the community.
I think all that we're doing is helping Peter polish a proposal to be
presented to pgsql-general.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:55:42 -0400

> presented to pgsql-general.

I sort of was presuming that the proposal to retire a given list ought
to be debated on that list too (and I think this is covered by the
"there may be objections" in Peter's proposal); but do we really need
to debate the merits of another list on -general?  If people aren't
actually subscribed to the list in question, why should they care (or,
for that matter, be consulted) on its disposition?

A

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:05:32 -0400

> for that matter, be consulted) on its disposition?

Well, that would work too, as long as we assume that each of the
keep-or-retire decisions is independent.  I'm not sure that they are
independent though.  At least, I think we ought to present the whole
thing as one proposal, so that people don't have a reaction of "why
are you picking on my list?"

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:16:15 -0400

> are you picking on my list?"

Oh, ok, I can buy that argument.

A

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:07:12 -0400

On Thursday 03 July 2008 13:27:41 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > questions? And how? Not being able to connect to postgres from a
> > webserver is pretty much the same issue as not connecting from anything
> > else. Or what about someone using dbd:pg from a script, vs. someone using
> > it to write a cgi?
> >
> > *shrug*
>

PHP developers won't care how you would access something via activerecord any 
more on a -wwwdev list than they would on -general.

> > benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty
> > low anyway)
>

AFAICT, you are currently arguing specifically over whether pgsql-php should 
be included along with the other lists in Peters proposal. If what you're 
really objecting to is Peter's overall proposal that dumping people 
from -ports, -cygwin, and -interfaces back onto -general is a problem, please 
restate your argument in that wider scope.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:10:07 -0700

> restate your argument in that wider scope. 

Fair enough.

I do not believe it is wise to dump a bunch of people on general
regardless of the low traffic of other lists. General is entirely too
active.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:44:45 -0400

> regardless of the low traffic of other lists. General is entirely too

Well, there's a tradeoff to be made between having a few busy lists
and having a lot of low-traffic ones.  The latter is hardly nirvana,
since you have the problems of fragmented discussions (or else a
lot of cross-posting) as well as a greatly increased risk of misplaced
postings.

I think the general feeling (at least at the developer meeting where
this was discussed) is that we've erred too far in the second direction
and need to pull back a bit.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:07:35 -0400

> and need to pull back a bit.

Let me remind that there was no one against this idea of removing
certain lists (and there was plenty of people there.)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:20:11 +0200

> We have a whole category of "inactive mailing lists" on the archives...

Aside from the win32 list, I think the inactive lists have been inactive for 
far too long for anyone to remember the process to get them there.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:23:53 +0200

> far too long for anyone to remember the process to get them there.

The concept of "inactive lists" I think is just a grouping on the
website. If you try to mail to them, you get a bounce. They're gone from
majordomo, and only exist so that you can find the archives still.

And that part is easy now, it's just a flag in the database.

//Magnus

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:57:52 -0300

> company trying to use it for database procedural work.

How about pgsql-interfaces?

- -- 
Marc G. Fournier        Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [email-masked]                              MSN . [email-masked]
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:44:55 +0200

> are you picking on my list?"

I will write a proposal to the affected lists now.