Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup
Message-ID: <9369@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 19 Mar 91 16:15:26 GMT
References: <5M.9Z65@xds13.ferranti.com> <9302@star.cs.vu.nl> <3+2AN33@xds13.ferranti.com>
Sender: root@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 31

In article <3+2AN33@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I don't see any difference between ".code" and ".sources", but if the name
>is important then I can go either way. 
The argument against comp.sources.minix is simply that lots of people who
know nothing about MINIX will read it expecting complete C programs.  When
they see an endless stream of cdiffs, they will go into flame mode.  Calling
it comp.os.minix.code clearly indicates that it is not analogous to 
comp.*.sources.*

In fact, I'll happily put whatever
>anyone wants in the CFD, including arguments against it. It is, after all,
>a Call for Discussion.

>Now that you've brought the idea up, how do people feel about a ".sources"
>and a ".patches" group, both?
No.  There's so little point in having a bunch of tiny groups.


>> I would prefer to keep comp.os.minix, but if for technical reasons groups
>> with the syntactic structure a.b.c.d and a.b.c are not allowed, then
>> comp.os.minix could become comp.os.minix.d or comp.os.minix.disc.
>
>This is not in general a problem, though there are people who have strong
>feelings in favor of a separate .misc group there's no rule or real technical
>problem with doing things this way.

The disadvantage of .misc is that it suggests that the odds and ends go
there that didn't fit in elsewhere, as in comp.os.misc.  It is my
expectation that "comp.os.minix.misc" would be the main group.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)