Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!budvar.future-i.NET!not-for-mail
From: Ed Avis <ed@membled.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.misc
Subject: Re: PEAR DB 1.6.0 has been released
Date: 03 Mar 2004 21:31:35 +0000
Lines: 39
Sender: ed@budvar.future-i.net
Message-ID: <l1ptbtboso.fsf@budvar.future-i.net>
References: <c145md$p9s$1@reader2.panix.com> <1077299993.768992@yasure> <c15lrl$1avco1$1@ID-161111.news.uni-berlin.de> <1077345802.384410@yasure> <uwu69g7c4.fsf@standardandpoors.com> <4b5394b2.0402271156.6c2ddec7@posting.google.com> <l1oerjjzge.fsf@budvar.future-i.net> <4b5394b2.0403021145.7ecb395e@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: budvar.future-i.net (212.100.224.95)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1078350050 60557053 I 212.100.224.95 ([4634])
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Bryce Canyon"
Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.misc:136509

ed.prochak@magicinterface.com (Ed prochak) writes:

>>.announce is a fair point, if there were an .announce group that
>>should probably be used instead.  But there isn't.
>
>Depends.
>there's a comp.software.shareware.announce
>I thought there was a comp.software.announce but I'm wrong.

I don't think you're being fair, it doesn't make sense to put all
different kinds of software release in one group and nobody could be
expected to read it, except perhaps the maintainers of software
archives.  A newsgroup is a community of people interested in the same
thing and 'people interested in Oracle and tools used with it' is a
more identifiable group than 'people interested in software'.

In any case, PEAR DB is not shareware.

>there's a php.general

Yes, I would expect the announcement to be suitable for cross-posting
between a PHP group and whatever the appropriate groups are for each
database system.  We are discussing whether in the case of Oracle the
appropriate group is .misc or .marketplace.

>>.marketplace is not appropriate because it is not a commercial
>>announcement.

>This is where we disagree. It LOOKS commercial to me.

But do you think it _is_ commercial?

After all the charter doesn't say 'all messages that look vaguely
commercial with a brief glance'; I don't know of any newsgroup that
applies such a capricious rule.  Surely you agree that what matters is
the content of the article.

-- 
Ed Avis <ed@membled.com>
