Re: New mailing list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-20 09:28:46 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > On 2014-06-20 08:59:52 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 06/20/2014 01:12 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> >> >> On 06/19/2014 11:16 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> >> >>> Hi folks
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm hoping to apply for a new mailing list hosted on the .org
>> >> >>> infrastructure, a project list "bdr-users", for the bi-directional
>> >> >>> replication project.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> hmm why would we need a mailinglist for a specific feature, we dont have
>> >> >> lists for other features either. So what would be "on topic" on that
>> >> >> list that does not fit others?
>> >> >
>> >> > BDR is on track to be a feature in PostgreSQL core - in 9.5 or 9.6 - and
>> >> > parts have been merged already.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, the patch is ready for real world use now, and requires only
>> >> > very minimal changes to 9.4 - sufficiently so that it'll shortly have a
>> >> > script to just convert a 9.4 datadir for use with the BDR patch, or vice
>> >> > versa.
>> >> >
>> >> > Given the level of user interest I've been seeing I'd like to have
>> >> > somewhere for users to communicate about it, discuss it, report issues,
>> >> > etc, so that we have a much more solid feature for merging into 9.5 and
>> >> > 9.6. I'm aware of people who intend to put this into production, not
>> >> > just test with it, so there'll be more than just some chat about it on
>> >> > -hackers.
>> >>
>> >> We've traditionally shied away from having per-feature mailing lists
>> >> as they end up fragmenting discussion, and typically most of the
>> >> interested parties are on both lists anyway. In a (very) recent
>> >> discussion on -core on the topic of having feature lists, it was very
>> >> clear that it is not something the majority of us want to do.
>> >
>> > But it's not really a 'per feature' mailing list. BDR is a PGDG licenced
>> > extension (including some patches to postgres) that allows to do logical
>> > replication, including multimaster, today. Using 9.4. I doubt an
>> > eventual in-core facility will have the same UI, so BDR will continue to
>> > live for a while independently anyway.
>>
>> That seems to be somewhat at odds with Craig's justification - at
>> least as I read it - where he seems to be saying that the purpose of
>> the list is to refine the design for inclusion in 9.5/9.6.
>
> Yes, we want all the features in core. But given how postgresql
> development works it neither will be integrated tomorrow nor will it
> look exactly what we already have right now. So having something ready
> now is rather worthwile - and that's what we've done.
>
> There already have been people asking questions about BDR on -hackers
> and on -bugs. That's not been, say, welcomed with open arms, since the
> majority of the audience there won't be interested in that.
>
> This list is supposed to be about the usage and bugs in bdr. The design
> of the in-core facilities should (and will) happen on -hackers just like
> the logical decoding facilities et al were designed there.

That certainly makes more sense. We do have other projects with their
own lists (like pgAdmin of course), so I have no problem with that in
general. My only concern is that this would be a relatively
short-lived list.

Interested to hear what others think...

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company