Обсуждение: Proposal to remove some mailing lists
At the developers meeting in Ottawa, I was tasked to work on proposals to reduce the number of mailing lists. For those who don't know the background: It has been brought up for some time in various contexts that there are too many PostgreSQL mailing lists with unclear purposes, leading to confusions about where to post (and cross-posting) as well as the effect that developers and contributors will essentially have to subscribe to all lists anyway to keep informed. For example, many user issues might be somewhere in the middle of administration and SQL, making the distinction between these two lists appear less relevant, and many patches need discussion on hackers, so some have suggested merging the patches and hackers mailing lists. Before we get to those more intrusive issues, I want to start with a few simple cases. * pgsql-ports This list receives very little traffic. Most posts are on topic if you believe the mailing list descriptions, but would in practice better appear on other mailing lists, for example: "It doesn't compile on NormalUnix" -> pgsql-bugs, "How can I add support for StrangeUnix" -> pgsql-hackers, "Building PostgreSQL fails" -> pgsql-general or thereabouts. Most posts of those types already appear on other mailing lists anyway. I believe posting to pgsql-ports doesn't give users better help, and reading pgsql-ports isn't very useful for monitoring porting issues either. I suggest retiring that mailing list and asking users to post their issues to other mailing lists. * pgsql-cygwin This list receives almost no traffic anymore, and many are not on topic (confusing Cygwin with Windows in general). Obviously, running PostgreSQL on Cygwin isn't the hottest topic anymore. I suggest retiring this mailing list and redirecting users to other mailing lists, using the pattern I described above for pgsql-ports. * pgsql-interfaces This list used to be for ODBC, JDBC, and friends. The former two have had their own forums for a long time now, so we are left with some undefined "friends". Traffic is now at 10 to 20 posts a month. The posts are now a mix of announcements about interfaces maintained elsewhere (e.g., new version of DBD::Pg or Ruby driver), some libpq usage questions, off-topic SQL questions, porting issues, and some completely unrelated PostgreSQL stuff. It has become basically useless to read the list except for very dedicated PostgreSQL question-answerers. I suggest retiring this mailing list. There are better mailing lists for almost all posts here. How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done. I have some idle thoughts: - Send an announcement to the mailing list that it will be closed in 2 weeks or a month. Perhaps some people will protest. - Drop all subscriptions. (Of course we should *not* subscribe them automatically to some other list.) - Depending on the capabilities of the mail system, an informative bounce, perhaps pointing to the web site, should be sent for some time after the mailing list is shut down.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> [ retire pgsql-ports, pgsql-cygwin, and pgsql-interfaces ]
+1 for those, but what about the patches/hackers merger?
pgsql-www doesn't seem like the right place to take a decision on
any such changes though. I think it really needs to be proposed
in pgsql-general.
> How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done.
We have a whole category of "inactive mailing lists" on the archives...
regards, tom lane
On 02/07/2008 17:49, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Before we get to those more intrusive issues, I want to start with a few > simple cases. Could I suggest adding pgsql-php to the candidates for culling. It gets very little traffic, and on fact we see more PHP-related stuff on -general than on -php. Ray. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals ------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday 03 July 2008 06:24:16 Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 02/07/2008 17:49, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Before we get to those more intrusive issues, I want to start with a few
> > simple cases.
>
> Could I suggest adding pgsql-php to the candidates for culling. It gets
> very little traffic, and on fact we see more PHP-related stuff on
> -general than on -php.
>
+1. While the questions on that list due tend to be pretty on-topic, they
would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more quickly
as well.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 11:46 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 03 July 2008 06:24:16 Raymond O'Donnell wrote: > > On 02/07/2008 17:49, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > +1. While the questions on that list due tend to be pretty on-topic, they > would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more quickly > as well. Except that General is an extremely active list and may cause those subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good. If we want to get rid of pgsql-php lets do it for something at least directional, say pgsql-webdev a list dedicated to web developers using PostgreSQL. Joshua D. Drake
On Thursday 03 July 2008 11:57:10 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 11:46 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 July 2008 06:24:16 Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2008 17:49, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > +1. While the questions on that list due tend to be pretty on-topic, they
> > would be equally fine asked on -general, and probably answered more
> > quickly as well.
>
> Except that General is an extremely active list and may cause those
> subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good.
>
> If we want to get rid of pgsql-php lets do it for something at least
> directional, say pgsql-webdev a list dedicated to web developers using
> PostgreSQL.
>
This presumes one only uses php for web development... really it can be used
for scripting and gui applications as well. Heck, I even heard of some
company trying to use it for database procedural work.
More on point, why would you seperate web developer questions from other
questions? And how? Not being able to connect to postgres from a webserver is
pretty much the same issue as not connecting from anything else. Or what
about someone using dbd:pg from a script, vs. someone using it to write a
cgi?
*shrug*
I'm subscribed to both, so it doesnt affect me much, but I don't see much
benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty low
anyway)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:57:10AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Except that General is an extremely active list and may cause those > subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good. Before we debate the merits of proposals Peter didn't make, can we settle the discussion on the ones he did? We all have our favourite retirement candidates (I, for instance, would like for me to be retired). But we have a particular proposal before us, and it'd be nice to handle it first. On that note: I agree with Peter's proposal. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Before we debate the merits of proposals Peter didn't make, can we
> settle the discussion on the ones he did?
This is not the list to be taking any final decisions on --- it doesn't
have a large enough readership to presume to speak for the community.
I think all that we're doing is helping Peter polish a proposal to be
presented to pgsql-general.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > This is not the list to be taking any final decisions on --- it doesn't > have a large enough readership to presume to speak for the community. > I think all that we're doing is helping Peter polish a proposal to be > presented to pgsql-general. I sort of was presuming that the proposal to retire a given list ought to be debated on that list too (and I think this is covered by the "there may be objections" in Peter's proposal); but do we really need to debate the merits of another list on -general? If people aren't actually subscribed to the list in question, why should they care (or, for that matter, be consulted) on its disposition? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think all that we're doing is helping Peter polish a proposal to be
>> presented to pgsql-general.
> I sort of was presuming that the proposal to retire a given list ought
> to be debated on that list too (and I think this is covered by the
> "there may be objections" in Peter's proposal); but do we really need
> to debate the merits of another list on -general? If people aren't
> actually subscribed to the list in question, why should they care (or,
> for that matter, be consulted) on its disposition?
Well, that would work too, as long as we assume that each of the
keep-or-retire decisions is independent. I'm not sure that they are
independent though. At least, I think we ought to present the whole
thing as one proposal, so that people don't have a reaction of "why
are you picking on my list?"
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 02:05:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > independent though. At least, I think we ought to present the whole > thing as one proposal, so that people don't have a reaction of "why > are you picking on my list?" Oh, ok, I can buy that argument. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 13:02 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 03 July 2008 11:57:10 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Except that General is an extremely active list and may cause those > > subscribed to pgsql-php to unsubscribe. Topic specific lists are good. > > > > If we want to get rid of pgsql-php lets do it for something at least > > directional, say pgsql-webdev a list dedicated to web developers using > > PostgreSQL. > > > > This presumes one only uses php for web development... It does? I was assuming that we would have rails, drupal, catalyst etc... all asked there. > really it can be used > for scripting and gui applications as well. Heck, I even heard of some > company trying to use it for database procedural work. > > More on point, why would you seperate web developer questions from other > questions? And how? Not being able to connect to postgres from a webserver is > pretty much the same issue as not connecting from anything else. Or what > about someone using dbd:pg from a script, vs. someone using it to write a > cgi? > > *shrug* > How do I do X with ORM Y and why does PostgreSQL react with Z. People on general may or may not care. People on wwwdev may. > I'm subscribed to both, so it doesnt affect me much, but I don't see much > benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty low > anyway) I am not arguing that we should keep pgsql-php as much as the idea of dumping people on to general which imo is abused way to much as it is. Joshua D. Drake
On Thursday 03 July 2008 13:27:41 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 13:02 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > More on point, why would you seperate web developer questions from other
> > questions? And how? Not being able to connect to postgres from a
> > webserver is pretty much the same issue as not connecting from anything
> > else. Or what about someone using dbd:pg from a script, vs. someone using
> > it to write a cgi?
> >
> > *shrug*
>
> How do I do X with ORM Y and why does PostgreSQL react with Z.
>
> People on general may or may not care. People on wwwdev may.
PHP developers won't care how you would access something via activerecord any
more on a -wwwdev list than they would on -general.
>
> > I'm subscribed to both, so it doesnt affect me much, but I don't see much
> > benefit to having that list as it stands now (and the traffic is pretty
> > low anyway)
>
> I am not arguing that we should keep pgsql-php as much as the idea of
> dumping people on to general which imo is abused way to much as it is.
>
AFAICT, you are currently arguing specifically over whether pgsql-php should
be included along with the other lists in Peters proposal. If what you're
really objecting to is Peter's overall proposal that dumping people
from -ports, -cygwin, and -interfaces back onto -general is a problem, please
restate your argument in that wider scope.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 15:07 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 03 July 2008 13:27:41 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 13:02 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > > AFAICT, you are currently arguing specifically over whether pgsql-php should > be included along with the other lists in Peters proposal. If what you're > really objecting to is Peter's overall proposal that dumping people > from -ports, -cygwin, and -interfaces back onto -general is a problem, please > restate your argument in that wider scope. Fair enough. I do not believe it is wise to dump a bunch of people on general regardless of the low traffic of other lists. General is entirely too active. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I do not believe it is wise to dump a bunch of people on general
> regardless of the low traffic of other lists. General is entirely too
> active.
Well, there's a tradeoff to be made between having a few busy lists
and having a lot of low-traffic ones. The latter is hardly nirvana,
since you have the problems of fragmented discussions (or else a
lot of cross-posting) as well as a greatly increased risk of misplaced
postings.
I think the general feeling (at least at the developer meeting where
this was discussed) is that we've erred too far in the second direction
and need to pull back a bit.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > I think the general feeling (at least at the developer meeting where > this was discussed) is that we've erred too far in the second direction > and need to pull back a bit. Let me remind that there was no one against this idea of removing certain lists (and there was plenty of people there.) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: > > How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done. > > We have a whole category of "inactive mailing lists" on the archives... Aside from the win32 list, I think the inactive lists have been inactive for far too long for anyone to remember the process to get them there.
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: >>> How to retire a mailing list -- I'm not sure if that has ever been done. >> We have a whole category of "inactive mailing lists" on the archives... > > Aside from the win32 list, I think the inactive lists have been inactive for > far too long for anyone to remember the process to get them there. The concept of "inactive lists" I think is just a grouping on the website. If you try to mail to them, you get a bounce. They're gone from majordomo, and only exist so that you can find the archives still. And that part is easy now, it's just a flag in the database. //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, July 03, 2008 13:02:16 -0400 Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > This presumes one only uses php for web development... really it can be used > for scripting and gui applications as well. Heck, I even heard of some > company trying to use it for database procedural work. How about pgsql-interfaces? - -- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkhwz2AACgkQ4QvfyHIvDvOw0gCg45fPEXHLyH8dqmR9tf/VeOao OdQAnjvIa7nQzyDHwA+34cUtpjJD3Ob2 =r7bz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: > Well, that would work too, as long as we assume that each of the > keep-or-retire decisions is independent. I'm not sure that they are > independent though. At least, I think we ought to present the whole > thing as one proposal, so that people don't have a reaction of "why > are you picking on my list?" I will write a proposal to the affected lists now.