Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:51:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1837 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote:
[...]
> 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)
It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have
groups placed in other groups, only in "categories".
> 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.
Yes.
> 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?
lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet groups. If it's
too much work to move the articles from lugnet.cad to a new group, we
can keep lugnet.cad it as it is now, and just add lugnet.cad.developers.
Play well,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: Jacob.Sparre.Andersen@risoe.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://hugin.risoe.dk/> --
----------------------------------------------
LEGO: MOC+++c TO+++(6543) TC+++(8880) AQ+++ BV-- #++ S LS++ A-/+ YB72m
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) I've heard that too. :) I don't think it's a Good-Thing/Bad-Thing thing. Note that sub-groups of real groups are a way of life in the lugnet.loc.* hierarchies -- and it's an important property of their usage. But sub-groups of real groups also (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
