Postresql RFD 2.0版帮助通缉。 [英] Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.

问题描述

由于我们进行了讨论，有人提到组名

应该是comp.databases.postgresql。我认为这是一个好名字，我想看看每个人都在想什么。


还有章程的问题。我想得到一些反馈

关于修改RFD的最佳章程，所以它尽可能强大。

。


所以我看到人们在当前RFD中遇到最大问题的事情是：


1。名字。他们想要一个更好的名字，也是一个不会与b bus相冲突的名字。 （usenet术语，没有意图不尊重）

comp.databases.postgresql.general邮件列表新闻组网关名称

空格。


有人建议使用comp.databases.postgresql。我认为这是一个很好的，

，如果其他人同意（请在这个帖子中回复），那么这将是下一个版本中的一个更改的一个

RFD。


2.章程。很多人表示反馈我的默认包机

不是很好。我会同意他们，因为它是作为一个起点

点提供的。我希望社区制定章程和他们决定的那个，我将在下一个RFD中加入。


如果还有其他的会使下一个postgresql RFD更强，

更好，请在这个帖子中讨论它。


我也认为postgresql组肯定应该在在comp。*层次结构下，big 8

。 （新创建的）alt组不应该是讨论的主要场所，因为不保证所有正确的
usenet服务器都会携带它，因为它们如果它是在大8中那么。

也是一种特殊的空气，可以在8大。这意味着

它已经经历了一个过程，已经过了仔细审查。然后人们会在comp.databases。*层次结构中找到oracle旁边的postgresql！ ;-)

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I''d
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

There is also the issue of the charter. I would like to get some feed back
on what the best charter could be for the revision of the RFD so it is a
strong as possible.

So the things I''m seeing that people are having the most problems with the
current RFD are:

1. The name. They want a better name, and also one that doesn''t clash with
the "bogus" (usenet terminology, no disrespect intended)
comp.databases.postgresql.general mailing-list newsgroup gateway name
space.

Someone suggested "comp.databases.postgresql". I think that is a good one,
and if others agree (please respond in this thread), then that will be one
of the changes in the next version of the RFD.

2. The charter. A lot of people expressed feedback that my default charter
wasnt very good. I''ll agree with them as it was provided as a starting
point. I would like the community to craft the charter and the one they
decide upon, I will include in the next RFD.

If there is anything else that would make the next postgresql RFD stronger,
and better, please discuss it in this thread.

I also think that a postgresql group should definately be in the big eight
under the comp.* hierarchy. The (newly created) alt group should not be a
primary place for discussion because it is not guarenteed that all "proper"
usenet servers will carry it, as they would if it were in the big 8. There
is also a certain air of respectablity to being in the big 8. It means
that it has gone through a process and has passed scrutiny. Then people
would find postgresql next to oracle in the comp.databases.* hierarchy! ;-)

推荐答案

Mike Cox< mi ********** @ yahoo.com>在新闻中写道：2v4mbfF2i3beoU1 @ uni-

berlin.de：

Mike Cox <mi**********@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3beoU1@uni-
berlin.de:

由于我们进行了讨论，有人提到团体名称
应该是comp.databases.postgresql。我认为这是一个好名字，我想看看每个人都在想什么。

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I''d
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

好​​多了，特别是如果你只提议

层次结构中的单个新闻组。使用一般一词是不必要的，也很麻烦。


-

比尔

Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in the
hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.

--
Bill

Woodchuck Bill写道：

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

Mike Cox< mi ********** @ yahoo.com>在新闻中写道：2v4mbfF2i3beoU1 @ uni-
berlin.de：

Mike Cox <mi**********@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3beoU1@uni-
berlin.de:

由于我们进行了讨论，有人提到组名
应该是comp.databases .postgresql。我认为这是一个好名字，我想看看每个人都在想什么。

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I''d
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

好多了，特别是如果你只提出一个新闻组
层次结构。使用一般一词是不必要的，也很麻烦。

Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in
the hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.

我的初衷是制作comp.database.postgresql。* groups

;大8托管层次结构它们被视为

" bogus"目前由许多适当的新闻提供商，因为他们没有通过RFD和CFV消失
。我想慢慢开始并使用最有利的

组，comp.databases.postgresql.general，然后根据谷歌测量的流量兴趣做其他的
但是，b $ b但是，邮件列表中存在阻力，即使这些群组已经在usenet上已经存在，并且在托管的大8中也是如此。名称空间没有RFD

和CFV。


这就是为什么我现在建议把它改成comp.databases.postresql所以

它不会与

comp.databases.postgresql.general的邮件列表名称空间发生冲突。如果

邮件列表/ usenet-gateway上的其他人确实希望成为大8的合适成员，那么

他们应该说出来。


还有一个问题是将postgresql邮件列表/新闻网关

移动到像postgresql这样的私有命名空间。*。这类似于gnu。*

和microsoft。*。这样就可以解决postgresql组中存在于托管层次结构中的问题，而无需通过RFD和CFV，这是我原本试图解决的问题。

My original intention was to make the comp.database.postgresql.* groups
proper members of the "big 8" managed hierarchy. They are considered
"bogus" currently by many proper News providers because they haven''t gone
through RFD and CFV. I wanted to start slowly and with the most benefitial
group, comp.databases.postgresql.general, and then do the others in
accordance to traffic interest as measured by google groups.

There is resistance in the mailing lists however, even though the groups are
already on usenet and are in the managed "big 8" name space without RFD
and CFV.

That is why I am now proposing to change it to comp.databases.postresql so
it doesn''t clash with the mailing list name space of
comp.databases.postgresql.general. If others on the
mailing-list/usenet-gateway do want to be proper members of the big 8, then
they should speak up.

There is also the issue of moving the postgresql mailing list/news gateway
to a private namespace like postgresql.*. This would be similar to gnu.*
and microsoft.*. This would solve the problem of the postgresql groups
residing in a managed hierarchy without going through RFD and CFV, which
was the problem I was originally trying to solve.

2004年11月6日星期六11:11:09 -0800，Mike Cox< mi ********** @ yahoo.com>写道：

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:11:09 -0800, Mike Cox <mi**********@yahoo.com> wrote:

由于我们进行了讨论，有人提到组名
应该是comp.databases.postgresql。我认为这是一个好名字，我想看看每个人都在想什么。

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I''d
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

我想你正在追求这个，迈克。您应该联系当前邮件到新闻网关的当前

所有者并与*他*建立某种共识

，问题和建议的解决方案是什么，在尝试
之前创建一个解决方案，只会让水更加浑浊。


这个人可以选择在他的服务器上使用Big 8命名空间（和其他

服务器）。他的服务器，他的规则。也许他可以被带到桌子上来讨论为什么这不是他认为的那么容易解决的问题并弄清楚什么是最好的方式来自于b $ b $在这里。


-

Devin L. Ganger< de *** @ thecabal.org>

" Aikido是基于让攻击采取自然路线的中心原则。当然，你不想通过妨碍它来阻止那种自然的流动。 - 无意中听到PyraMOO

I think you''re pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the current
owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of consensus
with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before trying to
create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even farther.

This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
discuss why that isn''t the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
the best way to go is from here.

--
Devin L. Ganger <de***@thecabal.org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don''t want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO

这篇关于Postresql RFD 2.0版帮助通缉。的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！