"Vern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> it can't *hurt* to have the group ...
>
> I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)
>
> The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need
> for a comp.* group
tm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his
>> little ...
>
> Too much information.
>
LOL. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;-)
--
Bill
---(
Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> it can't *hurt* to have the group ...
I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)
The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need for
a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse
newbies into thinking
On Saturday, in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert McClenon" wrote:
> I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
> has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
> a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Rolf Xstvik wrote:
>
>> I am curious. Where can i learn about these 'official newsgroups'?
>> I can't find any information about them on www.postgresql.org.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-ann
On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
>> Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Rolf Xstvik wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
'official PostgreSQL newsgruop' ... the 'official newsgroups' are the
On 12/3/2004 4:12 PM, Mike Cox wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
So how exactly do you think that big number of non-developer advanced
PostgreSQL users will populate the comp.* groups? I don't see them there
right now, and without them the comp.* groups are the wrong groups
because you will not get answers t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
> 'official PostgreSQL newsgruop' ... the 'official newsgroups' are the
> gated ones under pgsql.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Christopher Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) wrote:
Since the mailing list to comp.databases.postgresql.general gating was
stopped over a week ago, there has been zero communication on that
newsgroup. I guess, that currently all of the developers and advanced
users ar
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
If you want more news servers to carry pgsql.*, consider emailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and request them to carry pgsql.*.
I've done one better ... I email'd and arranged a direct peerage between
our servers, so that the groups are there, and all articles available
Mike Cox wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>
> So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
> pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuf
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>>
So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) wrote:
> Since the mailing list to comp.databases.postgresql.general gating was
> stopped over a week ago, there has been zero communication on that
> newsgroup. I guess, that currently all of the developers and advanced
> users are either on the mailing list or using
On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
direction?
Yes.
If that's the case, there shoul
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
David Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
carried by several of the large use
If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting
on the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official
groups and that real PostgreSQL questions are better asked somewhere
else, if the intention is to reach real developers and get real help.
I don't want to see p
David Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
> Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
>>carried by several of the large usenet servers.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
>> pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
>> direction?
Yes.
>> If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly remind
So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either direction?
If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting on
the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official groups
and th
On 12/3/2004 1:59 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
this RFD in no way affects
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
'offi
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
- Greg
>Hopefully someone like Russ will tell us the correct term for domains like
>microsoft.* and gnu.*. Those on the m
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql
>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>>the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
>
>>> The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried
>>> by several of the large usenet servers.
>
>>Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as
>>
25 matches
Mail list logo
