Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D4049EA.1000003@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On 01/26/2011 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Personally I think there is way too much third-party crap showing up on > pgsql-committers already. I am very close to changing my filters to > bit-bucket *everything* out of pgfoundry, and you can bet that if stuff > from github starts being allowed through, it will go straight to > /dev/null here. That's your privilege. Personally, I filter committers into two buckets: pgsql and everything else. The everything else folder often only gets looked at once a week or so. But I do find it useful to see what's going on elsewhere. The reason I moved the buildfarm client code to github is that pgfoundry doesn't support git, and I like github's web interface much more than the generic one we're using on git.postgresql.org. The buildfarm server code has never been on pgfoundry, but when I published it recently I again chose github, for the same reasons. > What I'd like to see is a reversion to the original design wherein > commit traffic for pgfoundry projects goes to lists for those individual > projects. As for github, people who want to watch that can watch it, > but please don't clutter pgsql-committers with it. I'm not sure where the original design bit comes in. I was involved heavily in setting up pgfoundry (not sure if that's a claim to fame or infamy, but my excuse is that Josh shanghaied me) and this has been part of its behaviour from the start, IIRC. Certainly I can set up a mailing list on pgfoundry and send commit messages there. I was simply trying to fit in with existing practice. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: