Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

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

From
"Vern"
Date:
Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <coono0$p91$1@news.hub.org>:

> 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 that that is the best forum for PostGreSQL advice
... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy.  None of the developers and power
users of these lists will be answering questions in the comp.* group,
if created, so it would be better to not create the group at all.

Vern

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

From
Woodchuck Bill
Date:
tm <tm@tmoero.invalid> wrote in
news:tm-F42753.12510918032005@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp:

> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> 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

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

From
Woodchuck Bill
Date:
"Vern" <vtster@gmail.com> wrote in news:dztyopvctgd@gmail.com:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <coono0$p91$1@news.hub.org>:
>
>> 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 that that is the best forum for
> PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy.  None of
> the developers and power users of these lists will be answering
> questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better
> to not create the group at all.

I still haven't decided which way to vote. I'm lingering in between NO
and ABSTAIN. I was originally in favor of a single, non-gated
Postgresql newsgroup in the comp* hierarchy. I'm no longer sure if it
would be a good thing or not.

The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little
crossposting stunt - but I will still vote on the *proposal*, and not
the *proponent*.

--

Bill

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

From
tm
Date:
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little ...

Too much information.