"Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's because it was split in two by a monthly boundary? (I
>> didn't look.)
>
> That looks to be it. There's also another split it did manage to catch where
> the original author started a new thread themselves that got linked in. That
> sort of thing (renamed or improperly continued thread on the same topic) is
> another spot where someone keeping track of things manually can end up with a
> more consistant view of the discussion than the archives provide.
There's no reason we can't include links to messages from the patch queue, but
the links are not sufficient in themselves to be considered the actual patch
queue.
The point of shared resources like a patch queue is to get us all on the same
page about the status of a patch and remind us which ones are in our domain,
whether we're a developer, reviewer, or committer.
Pointing to mail messages doesn't help us with any of that. We have to go back
and read the original message and make a judgement ourselves what state it's
in. If our judgement disagrees with others patches will just sit there with
everyone assuming someone else is looking at it.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication
support!