* Should c.l.ada group split
@ 1998-12-21 0:00 Mark Fisher
1998-12-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mark Fisher @ 1998-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
After having followed the discussions in this group
over the past months, I wonder is partitioning
the newsgroups along the following lines
.83.language
.83.tools
.83.tools compilers
.95.core
95.real-time-annex
.......
etc
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should c.l.ada group split
1998-12-21 0:00 Should c.l.ada group split Mark Fisher
@ 1998-12-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dennison
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dewarr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1998-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Mark Fisher" <xuq39@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> After having followed the discussions in this group
> over the past months, I wonder is partitioning
> the newsgroups along the following lines
>
> .83.language
> .83.tools
> .83.tools compilers
> .95.core
> 95.real-time-annex
> .......
> etc
I do not think it would be a good idea:
1. there is not enough traffic
2. there is a high rate of people who would not put their
post in the proper group anyway because they are
not regular participants.
Larry Kilgallen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should c.l.ada group split
1998-12-21 0:00 Should c.l.ada group split Mark Fisher
1998-12-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1998-12-22 0:00 ` dewarr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: dewarr @ 1998-12-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>,
"Mark Fisher" <xuq39@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> After having followed the discussions in this group
> over the past months, I wonder is partitioning
> the newsgroups along the following lines
>
> .83.language
> .83.tools
> .83.tools compilers
> .95.core
> 95.real-time-annex
Well I guess a "few months" is not long enough to have
been around when this subject was discussed previously,
but the general feeling is that the traffic is too low
to warrant this kind of splitting, and as always, threads
wander too widely to compartmenatlize them.
Now if we could divide the group into
comp.lang.ada.interesting-sensible-stuff
comp.lang.ada.garbage-and-spam
now that would be useful :-)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should c.l.ada group split
1998-12-21 0:00 Should c.l.ada group split Mark Fisher
1998-12-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
@ 1998-12-22 0:00 ` dennison
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dewarr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1998-12-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>,
"Mark Fisher" <xuq39@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> After having followed the discussions in this group
> over the past months, I wonder is partitioning
> the newsgroups along the following lines
>
c.l.a only gets about 30 postings a day. A group with much less traffic than
that will reach the point where its not really useful for anyone.
--
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-12-22 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-12-21 0:00 Should c.l.ada group split Mark Fisher
1998-12-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dennison
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dewarr
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox