Обсуждение: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:

> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
> Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,
>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
>>carried by several of the large usenet servers.
>
> What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
>
>

Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)

--
Bill

Woodchuck Bill wrote:
> David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
> news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
>>Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,
>>
>>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
>>>carried by several of the large usenet servers.
>>
>>What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
>>

I believe that is something that would be discussed amongst the
community but at this point it probably points to, "if there is
a mailing list, there is a corresponding pgsql.* group."

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>>
>
>
> Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of PostgreSQL Replication, and plPHP.
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

>David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
>news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
>> Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,
>>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
>>>carried by several of the large usenet servers.
>>
>> What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
>>
>>
>
>Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)

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 worst, only
the most straightforward.  It doesn't address the question of what
happens if the czar disappears, for instance.

     - -   Bob McClenon

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:24:46 +0000 (GMT), bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

>On Saturday, in article
>     <tto3r01vijeu2n9ggr6r5pl3p36bcmn1nf@4ax.com>
>     robert.mcclenon@verizon.net "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 worst, only
>> the most straightforward.  It doesn't address the question of what
>> happens if the czar disappears, for instance.
>
>Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?

Russia takes over Usenet. Film at eleven.

--
Just your average Joe.

On Saturday, in article
     <tto3r01vijeu2n9ggr6r5pl3p36bcmn1nf@4ax.com>
     robert.mcclenon@verizon.net "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 worst, only
> the most straightforward.  It doesn't address the question of what
> happens if the czar disappears, for instance.

Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
   "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
   national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
   software and decent hardware support."