From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Upcoming Changes to News Server ... |
Date: | 2004-11-24 18:59:16 |
Message-ID: | slrncq9mg4.2afp.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general |
On 2004-11-23, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
>>> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
>>> changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next
>>> 24hrs or so, traffic *to*
>>> comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be
>>> re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage
>>> others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new
>>> pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get
>>> through ...
>>
>> What exactly is this meant to achieve?
>
> To clean up the comp.* hierarchy ... evcen if the 4/5 that are being RFDd
> right now pass, ppl are going to continue screaming that the other 15-16
> should be removed as well ... this way, thos using news.postgresql.org can
> still get access to the whole hierarchy, while the comp.* would only carry
> those that are deemed "official"
Any chance of there being regular (or even only occasional) signed
checkgroups messages for the new hierarchy?
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2004-11-24 20:57:26 | Re: Upcoming Changes to News Server ... |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2004-11-24 09:52:26 | Re: Upcoming Changes to News Server ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eric D Nielsen | 2004-11-24 19:17:41 | Re: PostGreSQL upgrade failed (Debian Packages), need advice... |
Previous Message | Ken Tanzer | 2004-11-24 17:53:41 | Re: Regexp matching: bug or operator error? |