On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> All I meant was, has core talked about it?
>
> There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
> of our charter IMHO.
>
> Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
> the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
> my own $0.02. He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere.
> The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not
> given one cause to think it will :-(
If the news.groups stuff does go through, there is no reason why the setup
can't gate to both hierarchhies ... but, the RFD is based on only
officially doing 4 of the 21 groups ... by setting up the pgsql.*
hierarchy, the "bogus groups" stay off of comp.*, and the official ones
can still stay ...
What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible
by those that wish to ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
