Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:38:05 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Cc: dpage@pgadmin.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com,
	pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Subject: Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists
Message-ID: <20190111163805.GT2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20190110171835.GP2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <3281.1547142423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+OCxoxsEC78bJrkgWObfx7jDTZ_DPi7TucEZSmS4hXbZOYDTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190111.100804.2220477848676088079.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2zf4BlJ3/42CPO3s"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190111.100804.2220477848676088079.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--2zf4BlJ3/42CPO3s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tatsuo Ishii (ishii@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
> >> I'm quite on board with the need to reduce useless cross-posting,
> >> but this is not the solution.
> >=20
> > Agreed. Similarly, posts from pgadmin-support sometimes end up
> > intentionally being cross posted to pgadmin-hackers.
>=20
> Another use case is, pgsql-docs and pgsql-hackers. For non trivial
> documentation changes I would like to register a doc patch to CF, but
> CF app does not pick up any messages other than posted in
> pgsql-hackers. So to discuss with pgsql-doc subscribers, while dealing
> with CF app, I would like cross postings for pgsql-hackers and
> pgsql-docs.

So, cross-posting between -hackers and -docs should be working now,
thanks to the change I made yesterday.

After stealing some time from Magnus to chat quickly about this (he
seems to be mostly unavailable at present), what we're trying to figure
out is what the group, overall, wants, and in particular if the change
to allow cross-posting with -hackers solves the valid use-cases while
preventing the invalid use-cases (like cross-posting between -general,
-performance, and -sql).

Of course, it isn't perfect, but then it's unlikely that anything will
be.  Changes which require us to write additional code into pglister
will, of course, take longer, but we can work towards it if there's
agreement about what such a change would look like.  In the interim, we
could see how things go with the current configuration, or we could add
other lists to the 'exclude', beyond just -hackers and the private
lists, or we could add them all (effectively going back to where things
were before the changes were made).

Thoughts?  Specific votes in one of those directions would help me, at
least, figure out what should be done today.

Thanks!

Stephen

--2zf4BlJ3/42CPO3s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=wVpJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2zf4BlJ3/42CPO3s--