Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists

"Tom Lane" <tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> "Matthew T. O'connor" <matthew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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!

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers