Re: pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>   
>> Yeah, that experiment hasn't seemed to work all that well for me
>> either.  Do you have another idea to try, or do you just want to
>> revert to the old way?
>>     
>
> Since almost the first day I hacked on PostgreSQL I have been filtering 
> both lists into the same folder, so they pretty much appear to be one 
> and the same to me anyway.  The only step that would optimize that 
> situation further would be doing away with pgsql-patches and telling 
> people to send patches to pgsql-hackers.  I understand that some people 
> may not care for the extra volume that the patches bring in.  But with 
> 250+ kB of hackers mail a day, the few patches don't seem all that 
> significant.  And to be serious about hacking (and tracking the 
> hacking) you need to get both lists anyway, so it would make sense to 
> me to just have one.
>
>   

how many very large patches are sent? Not too many. We could in fact put 
a limit on the attachment size and make people publish very large 
patches some other way (on the web, say?)

cheers

andrew