Xref: utzoo comp.databases:1714 comp.lang.c:14687 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!serene!rfarris From: rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C DATABASE (source!) Keywords: dbm btree Message-ID: <205@serene.UUCP> Date: 13 Dec 88 02:47:07 GMT References: <161@lakesys.UUCP> <12772@steinmetz.ge.com> <201@serene.UUCP> <8524@alice.UUCP> Reply-To: rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) Organization: Serenity Systems Lines: 31 In article <8524@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: ` `The normal procedure would be to post a message in the discussion group `stating that you posted some source to the appropriate source group and `that everyone can read it there. ` `Unfortunately for some groups that message should say "I submitted it to ` and you will be able to read it there in about `4 months." Clearly the link with the discussion will be gone by then. ` `So I would consider posting sources in discussion groups justified if the `appropriate source groups have a very long delay. ` I'm new to the net, and I'm really just learning the ropes, but I thought that the reason for having moderators on the source groups was so that some sort of weeding could take place, so that you could be assured that what was posted was of *some* worth. It seems to me that uncontrolled posting short-circuits this process. Shouldn't uncontrolled source posting go to an un-moderated source group like alt.sources? Isn't that what alt.sources is for? Then there could be a pointer in the appropriate news group mentioning that the source had been posted. But what do I know? :-) -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757