Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ghgv1-000657-55 for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:27:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ghguz-0006o7-R2 for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:27:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ghguy-0006gi-10 for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:27:09 +0000 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ghguv-0000A0-0I for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:27:06 +0000 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA6222471; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:27:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=anarazel.de; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm3; bh=VKPlZXcFz6vLrcnhgknJ6YHg0gd kprLB1Tyx/J8XcqE=; b=Oz7kHxbo2Ia0aImZBrIjo8Si7sUD35pUaKWjuK06EWK oU7XXi/LszCZsrASBJs/7i6SBBKPCcZOO/O1QFOsruFmPNgKm0XysY7CyZLBGsP0 4zMH3fzYjo4/AW2/e+MyERjXC64pdyMELDASZ0DCK16gw8F1nCp/jOVEJ2MN5urh eWx5ifqidZgFX8FjEV3/HoROpZeCYOgKjurT6/AeqTtUxukOXMj+b4vW53m95h70 Sdq3MzdSzQRPf0B8yDNRMoRcPdXdp8pnbYXE1jgF0m9tR8lwT8SfvXm5GiqjPvp/ kOzScNVX8KW8QKLP27SoOFvyhO6LoxQJXCalbZMy/yg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=VKPlZX cFz6vLrcnhgknJ6YHg0gdkprLB1Tyx/J8XcqE=; b=ylb9/zS+5uS+haLR3I6/Yn 9ZUqirFfQIEdMHpDj/f/Nziby1PR955mCydcXUO0Qbk+e/LNt1ManXVUt6TqiPUc I6XWAzwkKpbMDMEp3qwmjDQ9K8j8bdfl5Dj/IIELRfZWs4dzc4XstI5kJzLDP/vX nB2gEqFOB1VYnsQIU9xB9O+g6rEQY7PqXmbj6vSVkEl5p8QMuV/RwNDZTq4oSkl4 Ry+ZnFul3SQTsH8NdT6uoFYab+NeP0k1Y/56Wk/NRh4YJEksllqTAI2HTn/xbE1/ 681csCv5CxOUrc+AX3Qb9dl+HEOJ40MGRtDy7L/1XJqn0GP4f5UvFY/H8DgBEjMw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrfeefgddufeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfh ggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheptehnughrvghsucfhrhgvuhhnugcuoegr nhgurhgvshesrghnrghrrgiivghlrdguvgeqnecukfhppeelkedrvddutddrudegtddrud ejudenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghnughrvghssegrnhgrrhgriigvlhdr uggvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from intern.anarazel.de (c-98-210-140-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.140.171]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 06EAE100BA; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:27:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:27:00 -0800 From: Andres Freund To: Tom Lane Cc: Stephen Frost , Dean Rasheed , pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists Message-ID: <20190110202700.gij46mfq6pl7oaao@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20190110171835.GP2528@tamriel.snowman.net> <3281.1547142423@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3281.1547142423@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Hi, On 2019-01-10 12:47:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Has the policy on cross-posting to multiple lists been hardened recently? > > > So, the short answer is 'yes'. > > Perhaps that hasn't been getting through to people...? > > If this was publicly announced anywhere, I didn't see it. > I would have pushed back if I had. CC'ing -hackers on a reply to > a bug report is something I do all the time, and I do not think > it'd be a good idea to stop doing so, nor to make the thread > disappear from the -bugs archives. +1 This seems quite the significant change to make without public discussion. Greetings, Andres Freund