The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an
unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on.
I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next
proposal does not conta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comp.databases.postgresql.general
How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
comp.databases.postgresql.misc?
-Mike
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/readin
BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server
it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get
there unless someone puts it there.
If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you?
You can still access all of them the same way
In news.groups, Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comp.databases.postgresql.general
> How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
> comp.databases.postgresql.misc?
In this particular situation, I think .general may actually be a better
name tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Bell) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> comp.databases.postgresql.general
> >
> >How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
> >comp.data
Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
berlin.de:
> Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy.
I agree
> I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most
> popular and also the ones which cover the relevant postgresql
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is my last post to news.groups about this.
Good. With any luck, Marc will block you from the mailing
lists for spamming those lists.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> comp.databases.postgresql.general
>
>How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
>comp.databases.postgresql.misc?
The whole point of this proposa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot...
You should not do that.
Those ballots will be invalidated since only the official ballots that
are posted or obtained directly from the votetaker a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an
> unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on.
> I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
> and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If
Brian Mailman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
>> and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot...
>
> You should not do that.
>
> Those ballots will be invalidated since only the official ballots that
> are post
Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy.
Many of the 21 are not used that often, and would not be of much popularity
to those on usenet.
I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most
popular and also the ones which cover the relevant pos
12 matches
Mail list logo
