Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: THIS NEWSGROUP NEEDS SPLITTING. Summary: warning, meta-discussion Message-ID: <2371@epimass.EPI.COM> Date: 8 Aug 88 16:13:54 GMT References: <43@cybaswan.UUCP> Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) Distribution: comp.arch Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 29 In article <43@cybaswan.UUCP> eeartym@cybaswan.UUCP (Dr R.Artym eleceng ) writes: >Comp.arch has got out of hand, I think. Is there any support for splitting >it into 4 or 5 topical subgroups representing the bulk of traffic over the >last few months? The present flat structure was OK a year or so back, but >the great increase in traffic makes it quite unwieldy now. The "topical subgroups" already exist, and if we all used a bit more discipline we could clean up the problems a bit. Discussions of the C language keep popping up; they belong in comp.lang.c or comp.std.c. Programming languages are a frequent topic; there's comp.lang.misc for them. Most of the discussion about whether to program in assember or HLL could go there as well. The discussion of blitters is starting to turn into a "my favorite personal computer does it better" discussion; maybe we need comp.sys.flame for these. Often a discussion starts off on computer architecture and drifts; when this happens, it can be moved into other groups by adding a crosspost and a Followup-To line. For example, if the answer to a question really involved the subtleties of the C language, you can say Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c Followup-To: comp.lang.c and warn people in the body of the article that followups are going some place else. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins