Обсуждение: List of postgresql rogue groups (was Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general)
List of postgresql rogue groups (was Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general)
От
Woodchuck Bill
Дата:
barbara@bookpro.com wrote in news:10outlgpkitaq20@corp.supernews.com: >>The other issue is that I would like to add the other postgresql >>groups for consideration to be included into the big 8. However there >>are quite a few of them, and I don't know if all of them deserve to be >>there. They are all under comp.databases.postgresql.*, and I highly >>doubt Marc would want to eliminate them. I will have to include them >>all and have a heavy postgresql presense in the comp.databases.* >>hierarchy. > > I have no advice to offer on this. How many are there exactly? 21, at least. comp.databases.postgresql.admin comp.databases.postgresql.advocacy comp.databases.postgresql.announce comp.databases.postgresql.bugs comp.databases.postgresql.committers comp.databases.postgresql.docs comp.databases.postgresql.general comp.databases.postgresql.hackers comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.jdbc comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.odbc comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.hackers comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.support comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php comp.databases.postgresql.novice comp.databases.postgresql.patches comp.databases.postgresql.performance comp.databases.postgresql.ports comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin comp.databases.postgresql.questions comp.databases.postgresql.sql -- Bill
> > barbara@bookpro.com wrote in news:10outlgpkitaq20@corp.supernews.com: > > >>The other issue is that I would like to add the other postgresql > >>groups for consideration to be included into the big 8. However there > >>are quite a few of them, and I don't know if all of them deserve to be > >>there. They are all under comp.databases.postgresql.*, and I highly > >>doubt Marc would want to eliminate them. I think Marc understands by now that these lists won't be eliminated. It's a parallel process. Let's start with a few and create the other groups down the road. An RFD with 21 groups has a good chance to be rejected, not because they are not relevant, just because it's too many at one time. I assume a second RFD should be 'filed' in 6 months with the remaining groups, and should be nothing more than a cruise. Nax
"Max" wrote: > > > > barbara@bookpro.com wrote in news:10outlgpkitaq20@corp.supernews.com: > > > > >>The other issue is that I would like to add the other postgresql > > >>groups for consideration to be included into the big 8. However there > > >>are quite a few of them, and I don't know if all of them deserve to be > > >>there. They are all under comp.databases.postgresql.*, and I highly > > >>doubt Marc would want to eliminate them. > > I think Marc understands by now that these lists won't be eliminated. It's a > parallel process. Let's start with a few and create the other groups down > the road. An RFD with 21 groups has a good chance to be rejected, not > because they are not relevant, just because it's too many at one time. I > assume a second RFD should be 'filed' in 6 months with the remaining groups, > and should be nothing more than a cruise. > Cruise my ass. Marc was a dumbfuck for setting up the rogue newsgroups like he did. There is no way in hell that your gonna get *ALL* the newsgroups. Thats not how Usenet works. Be happy with whatever you get. We're doing you the favor. Not the other way around. Show us some appreciation for Christs sake.