Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:23:53 -0800
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>, 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: <20190111182353.flfkfrxybredgmyc@alap3.anarazel.de>
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>
 <20190111163805.GT2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190111163805.GT2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2019-01-11 11:38:05 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> 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).

Those don't really seem to be common and painful enough to really need a
technical solution.  -performance still seems like a useful subset of
people, and sometimes threads migrate to/from there. I'd personally just
merge -sql with -general, it doesn't seem to have a use-case left
anymore. But that can be done later.


> 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.

I think you should just revert to the prior state, and then we can
discuss potential solutions and the problems they're intended to
address. I find it baffling that after being called out for
unilateral/not publicly discussed decisions you attempt to address that
criticism by continuing to make unilateral decisions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund