Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:16:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1703 times
|
| |
|
|
sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk (Jacob Sparre Andersen) writes:
> [...] lugnet.cad
> should probably be renamed lugnet.cad.users to make the difference clear.
Assuming this happens, the safest way is probably to re-inject all of the
articles into the new ng, rather than actually renaming it. Then after that,
the old group can be blown away.
The process of re-injecting, however, is tricky with respect to crossposting.
It will have to be a hack where it reposts only to the new group, and then
fixes up the xref's afterwards. (Note that even if the group is simply
renamed, the xref's in the old articles will still have to be fixed.)
There would, BTW, be the opportunity to go through the 600+ articles in the
current lugnet.cad and separate them into .users and .developers. For example,
these threads are developer-focused:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:18
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:20
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:406
while these examples are user-focused:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:59
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:93
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:394
And then there are some that kind of fall into both camps:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:520
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:223
A list of all the articles posted to lugnet.cad appears here:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:1-
if anyone wants to volunteer to make a list of which would go into .users and
which would go into .developers...assuming the switch happens of course.
On the other hand, there seems to be quite a wide range of topics in the plain
old .cad group -- not just on using the software, but on discussions of cool
models that have been built/CAD-modeled. (Technically, that's an offshoot of
using the software, but practically, it's more focused on how cool the model
was rather than on the CAD software). I think this happened on the L-CAD list
too.
Is there a reason that there has to be a lugnet.cad.users sub-group and that
lugnet.cad has to go away? In other words, why wouldn't
lugnet.cad
lugnet.cad.dat
lugnet.cad.developers
work just as well as (if not better than)
lugnet.cad.dat
lugnet.cad.developers
lugnet.cad.users
?
All developers are users, after all, and it seems odd to me to discuss CAD
models in a group named lugnet.cad.users instead of simply lugnet.cad.
Maybe lugnet.cad.misc or lugnet.cad.general captures the essense of the .users
ng more accurately? Do those waste the opportunity-for-effect that .users has
when juxtaposed with .developers? If so, what happens when/if there is someday
a group or two lexicographically separating .developers and .users? Is .dat
for developers or for users? Isn't the whole lugnet.cad* tree for users? With
the .developers ng being for a special kind of user -- the developer/user?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have groups placed in other groups, only in "categories". (...) Yes. (...) lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) I would say that my reasons are purely "socio-political". I would like a clear separation of developer and user discussions on the topic of LEGO CAD. Now that I see how people actually use l-cad and lugnet.cad, I think it makes most sense to (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
80 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
