On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> That's a different issue altogether though (perfectly valid though). Is
>> there a more appropriate way to split the existing groups perhaps? I'm
>> opposed to shifting the windows users onto a platform specific group
>> just because there's a lot of them. I'm not opposed to shifting them if
>> we find there are lots of platform specific problems though.
> Well, unfortunately, at least 70% of the Windows users can be counted on not
> to differentiate platform-specific issues from general ones. And given the
> flakyness of the platform, I expect there to be continuous issues. Also, I'd
> really rather not have a 25-post thread on PGSQL-SQL discussing how XP-SP3
> breaks PostgreSQL.
> While there are other possible lists we could add, the advantage of
> PGSQL-WINDOWS is that it would attract a substantial portion of the new
> users, which, for example, a list named PGSQL-INSTALL might not.
I'm not ant-pgsql-windows, but I fear that the one thing you are trying to
avoid is going to happen if we do create it ... namely, all new windows
users will subscribe to that one list and post everything under the sun to
it, making that one list pretty useless :(
If anything, altho it might be long, let's do something like:
or something like that ... so that its not just the one list ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-08-12 01:55:16|
|Subject: Re: Request for download stats on release |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-08-12 01:34:18|
|Subject: Add URL to event|