From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Should c.l.ada group split
Date: 1998/12/22
Date: 1998-12-22T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75nbcp$ie6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net
In article <75md0v$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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-12-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 ` dewarr [this message]
1998-12-22 0:00 ` dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox