Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.

In article <2v5jonF2hmf8kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Cox
wrote:

> I'm pretty much done with this anyway. It is a waste of time putting in
> anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

You're way too impatient. Things don't happen here in time scales that
are measured in hours or days. Hang in there. You've got a good start
and some good people supporting what you want to do.

Relax, take your time (and the advise of the wise ones here (not me...
um well, whatever)) and work through the process.

Your proposal is, in its genesis, sound. Now, evolution.

djb

-----------
"No, no, no... you don't understand how radio works! First, I fade my
voice out like this, then cue the organist!"

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

> 1. I tried subscribing to comp.databases.postgresql.general through my
> usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group. When it wasn't
> found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.

Most modern news readers allow for multiple news server ... just point
yours at news.postgresql.org, and you can read from there, which has
always been the case ...


----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

In news.groups, Mike Cox writes:

> I'm pretty much done with this anyway. It is a waste of time putting in
> anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

Well, the problem from my perspective is that a lot of time and energy is
being spent on worrying about how to propose something or what possible
problems there might be with the group and no one (and I'm not asking you
to do this -- I understand very well where you're coming from and am
extremely sympathetic) has not taken the simple first step of just asking
Marc what the status of the groups are.

If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
someone else, I think everything would fall in place very simply. You'd
get a newsgroup, you wouldn't have to care about the gateway, and we'd be
down to arguing about which mailing lists should be gated.

As is, this thread is currently full of speculation about lots of things
that may or may not be problems and would be cleared up by getting all the
involved parties in the discussion. And everyone seems to be wanting you
to do this, which I think is a little unfair since the gateways aren't
even what you're worried about in the first place and you'd just have to
play telephone.

I really need to *not* be volunteering to do this, since I have a dozen
other things that I've already promised other people to work on, but it's
really frustrating that no one else is doing it either.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)

In news.groups, Devin L Ganger writes:
> Mike Cox wrote:

>> Russ Allbery , seems very knowledgable about this,
>> and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
>> about this discussion and Russ's email address.

> Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
> unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
> busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
> without their consent.

No, this is fine, and this didn't bother me at all. I'm happy to tell
Marc my opinion; I'm just going to also have to tell him that I don't have
time to do more than give my opinion right now and I don't know if there's
anyone else who's willing to do more of the footwork.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> 1. I tried subscribing to comp.databases.postgresql.general through my
>> usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group. When it wasn't
>> found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.
>
>
> Most modern news readers allow for multiple news server ... just point
> yours at news.postgresql.org, and you can read from there, which has
> always been the case ...

As I already wrote, the actual postgres NG is missing some lists like: "www",
to complete the panorama news.us.postgresql.org have a slony list that does
not exist in the archives. I think that NG is the best way to follow
the discussion and shall be at least a complete container for them and a
complete archive mirror too.




Regards
Gaetano Mendola

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

> If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
> the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
> someone else

what 'techincal issues of the gatewaying'?


----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

At 12:16 AM 11/7/2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
>In news.groups, Mike Cox writes:
>
> > I'm pretty much done with this anyway. It is a waste of time putting in
> > anymore effort since no one seems to want it.
>
>Well, the problem from my perspective is that a lot of time and energy is
>being spent on worrying about how to propose something or what possible
>problems there might be with the group and no one (and I'm not asking you
>to do this -- I understand very well where you're coming from and am
>extremely sympathetic) has not taken the simple first step of just asking
>Marc what the status of the groups are.
>
>If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
>the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
>someone else, I think everything would fall in place very simply. You'd
>get a newsgroup, you wouldn't have to care about the gateway, and we'd be
>down to arguing about which mailing lists should be gated.
>
>As is, this thread is currently full of speculation about lots of things
>that may or may not be problems and would be cleared up by getting all the
>involved parties in the discussion. And everyone seems to be wanting you
>to do this, which I think is a little unfair since the gateways aren't
>even what you're worried about in the first place and you'd just have to
>play telephone.
>
>I really need to *not* be volunteering to do this, since I have a dozen
>other things that I've already promised other people to work on, but it's
>really frustrating that no one else is doing it either.

I'll volunteer. This shouldn't be ThAT hard to fix.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Marc G Fournier writes:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
>> the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
>> someone else

> what 'techincal issues of the gatewaying'?

There are a couple of things that would be ideal to fix. One is that
currently the gateway isn't rewriting message IDs, which means that if
anyone else gates the same mailing lists into some other group, the posts
will conflict and posts will randomly disappear. This isn't a huge issue,
but it would be nice to fix it, since this is a common problem.

The other one is that right now the newsgroup and the mailing list get
different traffic since posts are only gated to the mailing list if the
person is already a member. This can cause confusion (like only half of a
thread being seen on the mailing list). The ideal way to fix this is to
make the newsgroup moderated (which also simplifies the whole process
since then you don't need any news to mail gateway). That way, things can
be set up so that only the messages that make it to the list make it to
the newsgroup.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

> There are a couple of things that would be ideal to fix. One is that
> currently the gateway isn't rewriting message IDs, which means that if
> anyone else gates the same mailing lists into some other group, the
> posts will conflict and posts will randomly disappear. This isn't a
> huge issue, but it would be nice to fix it, since this is a common
> problem.

We are doing that specifically for that reason ... In order to provide
redundancy, we currently have two mail<->news gateways of the mailing
lists in place, and the MessageIds are what prevents duplicates ...

> The other one is that right now the newsgroup and the mailing list get
> different traffic since posts are only gated to the mailing list if the
> person is already a member. This can cause confusion (like only half of a
> thread being seen on the mailing list). The ideal way to fix this is to
> make the newsgroup moderated (which also simplifies the whole process
> since then you don't need any news to mail gateway). That way, things can
> be set up so that only the messages that make it to the list make it to
> the newsgroup.

ppl keep saying this, but that is not how the groups are setup ... if
someone isn't subscribed to the list, the message goes to the mailing list
moderator (me) to approve to the list ... the only thing that doesn't go
to the lists is spam ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster