A maze of twisty mailing lists all the same
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: [HACKERS] A maze of twisty mailing lists all the same
Next: [HACKERS] Oddly indented raw_expression_tree_walker
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 8 Apr 2010 12:09 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> wrote: >> Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: >>> Because the poster chose to send it to pgsql-admin instead of >>> pgsql-general (or pgsql-bugs) very few of the usual suspects had >>> a chance to see it. 7 days later a question about a rather >>> serious database corruption problem had no responses. I do monitor that list, and try to respond to those issues I can, but had no clue what that message was about -- so I left it for someone else to take up. I often see Tom responding to posts on that list, so I kinda figure anything serious (or where I get it wrong) will be addressed by him, but this thread makes me wonder whether we should advise people not to post there when there is any indication of possible corruption or bugs. >>> I've never understand what the point of pgsql-admin is; just >>> about every question posted is an "admin" question of some sort. I think you just answered your own question. I've considered it to be a list for DBAs (or those filling that role, regardless of title) to discuss administrative and operational issues and "best practices". That seems useful to me. >> a counter argument is that merging lists would significantly >> increase the traffic on -general would may not be appreciated by >> the many people that are only subscribed to one or two of the >> affected lists. I would wager that the majority of people aren't >> subscribed to more than a small number of the available lists. > > Yeah. I read -performance, -hackers, -bugs, but not -sql, -admin, > -general. My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so I limit by list to try to target the issues of most interest to me. > Consolidating multiple mailing lists to increase viewership of > certain messages is only going to work if everyone who now follows > each of the smaller mailing lists does an equally good job > following the bigger one. That doesn't seem like a safe > assumption. Agreed. Perhaps further clarifying the charters of the various lists would help, but folding too much into any one list is likely to reduce the number of readers or cause "spotty" attention. (When I was attempting to follow all the lists, I'd typically give up when I fell about 6000 messages behind, and try to start up again "cold" after having missed a big interval of messages.) -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" on 8 Apr 2010 12:16 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Perhaps further clarifying the charters of the various lists would > help, but folding too much into any one list is likely to reduce the > number of readers or cause "spotty" attention. (When I was > attempting to follow all the lists, I'd typically give up when I > fell about 6000 messages behind, and try to start up again "cold" > after having missed a big interval of messages.) I don't quite agree with this, because -general is *already* at the level where it takes a significant chunk of daily time to keep up with it. All the other mergeable lists pale in comparison to its volume. I stopped trying to read lists completely a time ago, and merely read subject lines at this point, diving into ones that seem interesting or important. Merging the smaller lists that have a huge overlap of topics with -general already would thus be a win, as there would be a larger audience to reply to, and less lists to administer and have people keep track of. It would also reduce the confusion of "which list should I post this to?" I think -admin should absolutely be folded in, -sql really should as well, and slightly less so -performance and -interfaces. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg(a)turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201004081214 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAku+AV0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgVvgCbBh9vsx2cecfAhZQRmju4Vtyi zz0An0OjXFGtAtOyTUZFDDWGxrRZltBB =gDQ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 8 Apr 2010 12:44 On 4/7/10 10:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > Likewise I don't think we should have pgsql-performance or pgsql-sql > or pgsql-novice -- any thread appropriate for any of these would be > better served by sending it to pgsql-general anyways (with the > exception of pgsql-performance which has a weird combination of hacker > threads and user performance tuning threads). Sending threads to > pgsql-general would get more eyes on them and would avoid a lot of the > cross-posting headaches. What would someone subscribed to one of these > lists but not pgsql-general get anyways but some random sample of > threads that might be vaguely performance or admin related. They would > still miss most of the administration and performance questions and > discussions which happen on -general and -hackers as appropriate. (1) Regarding -sql and -performance, I couldn't disagree more. I agree that the charter of -admin is extremely vague. (2) This is *definitely* the wrong list for this discussion; it should be on -www. And, no, #2 was not meant to be ironic, even if it is. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Greg Stark on 8 Apr 2010 14:30 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote: > My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find > the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so > I limit by list to try to target the issues of most interest to me. But all it means is you get a random subset of the messages. You're still missing most of the admin or sql or performance related threads since they're mostly on -general anyways. Those three categories cover pretty much all of -general. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 8 Apr 2010 14:31 On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Greg Stark <stark(a)mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Grittner > <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote: >> My set is different, but the principle is the same -- I can't find >> the time to read all messages to all lists (really, I've tried), so >> I limit by list to try to target the issues of most interest to me. > > But all it means is you get a random subset of the messages. You're > still missing most of the admin or sql or performance related threads > since they're mostly on -general anyways. Those three categories cover > pretty much all of -general. Maybe we should remove -general. :-) ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [HACKERS] A maze of twisty mailing lists all the same Next: [HACKERS] Oddly indented raw_expression_tree_walker |