Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7707A2E0047 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:08:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64178-04 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:08:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from oxford.xeocode.com (87-127-95-198.no-dns-yet.enta.net [87.127.95.198]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C1B2E0037 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 17:08:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oxford.xeocode.com) by oxford.xeocode.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JtpwQ-0001JB-TB; Wed, 07 May 2008 21:08:42 +0100 To: "Tom Lane" Cc: "Matthew T. O'connor" , "Alex Hunsaker" , "Bruce Momjian" , "Brendan Jurd" , "PostgreSQL-development" Subject: Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists In-Reply-To: <8588.1210177204@sss.pgh.pa.us> (Tom Lane's message of "Wed\, 07 May 2008 12\:20\:04 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+mail01.enterprisedb.com:INBOX.hackers" 21984) References: <34d269d40805070752g4d578a1fu6acb00fd8e5f774e@mail.gmail.com> <200805071503.m47F3xi10638@momjian.us> <34d269d40805070837q19f1144eu8c316fa1cf6d8780@mail.gmail.com> <4821D0A0.8040305@zeut.net> <8588.1210177204@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:08:42 +0100 Message-ID: <878wylc1x1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200805/188 X-Sequence-Number: 118187 "Tom Lane" writes: > "Matthew T. O'connor" writes: >> Patches are an integral part of the conversation about development, I >> think trying to split them up is awkward at best. Do people really >> still think that the potential for larger messages is really a problem? > > Personally I'd be fine with abandoning -patches and just using -hackers. > We could try it for awhile, anyway, and go back if it seems worse. I'm for that. >> By the way, what is the actual size limit on hackers vs patches. > > They do have different size limits; we'd have to raise the limit on > -hackers if we do this. Marc would know exactly what the limits are. Note that even the size limit on -patches is too small for some patches. What I did with previous large patches which were not getting through to patches was put them up on a web page but with a new filename for each version. So the URL for a given version *was* stable, the content never changed. You could check the index page to see if there were more recent versions. I would suggest putting large patches up on the wiki in cases like that now, but isn't there a size limit on the wiki too? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!