Re: New CF app deployment
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: New CF app deployment |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwYMTJMRNES13bPRLMeXPWKfk5yZgvDHm663_YPar5VWw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: New CF app deployment (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: New CF app deployment
Re: New CF app deployment |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I think the old system where the patch submitter declared, this message
> contains my patch, is the only one that will work.
I tend to agree. That being said, calling out latest attachments is
also useful (or highlighting that a particular mail has a particular
file attached in general).
We can keep listing the attachment and just remove the automated check of what *kind* of attachment it is.
Annotations-wise, I think that it would be nice to be able to modify
an annotation, in case a typo is made (the old app supported this). I
I was sort of thinking it was something that happened seldom enough that you could just delete it and remove it again. But I guess if we're specifically thinking typos, it would make sense to add the ability to edit.
also think that it's a waste of screen space to show "who" within the
annotation view. Granted, the old app supported this, but I tend to
think that if I actually cared who added a certain annotation, I'd be
happy to drill down into history. I haven't cared so far, AFAICR.
Hmm. Personally, I definitely care about who made an annotation, but i guess I could be OK with going into the history as well. Anybody else have an opinion on the matter? I don't personally feel strongly either way.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: