🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov22.225042.27892@dsd.es.com> rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>In article <6764@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
>	lilleyc@cs.man.ac.uk (Chris Lilley) writes:
>>   [proposal for comp.sources.postscript and comp.sources.postscript.d]

>>There are two reasons why the suggested names are a good idea.
>>Firstly, they follow existing net conventions of a sources or binaries
>>group paired with another group with the ".d" appended - meaning the
>>discussion group. Conforming to the defacto naming standard seems a
>>good thing in itself - people know what to expect of the group simply
>>by looking at its name.

>I disagree.  My experience indicates that many people either don't
>realize there is a ".d" group and don't know that "d" means
>discussion, either.  All you have to do is to take a look at any of
>the unmoderated pictures groups to see that there are tons of people
>who won't follow this convention, _even_ when they do understand it.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but, while there is a convention for
".d" groups in some areas, there isn't one in comp.sources.  There is
only one ".d" group, "comp.sources.d" - there isn't a comp.sources.unix.d
or comp.sources.misc.d etc.  We'd be breaking completely
new ground by making a comp.sources.postscript.d.  And I don't believe
there'd ever be enough demand for it.

The comp.sources.postscript moderator could insert Followup-to:
redirections to existing comp.sources.d or comp.lang.postscript.
Preferably the former.

It's not as if c.s.d is overflowing with postings.  This
would separate source posting bug reports and patches.  Ie:
one would want patches to comp.sources.postscript postings to be
in comp.sources.bugs where the existing archivers can snag them.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca