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
---(end of
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. If
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.
[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 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
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 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 one, it is a
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
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
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
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
[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 reminder posting
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.
What are
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
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 usenet
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 should
[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 the
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
direction?
Yes.
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.* stuff is not gated in either
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
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
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
microsoft.*,
and
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
