From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 12 1999 - 05:47:45 CST
In <v04220801b4508c5438b5@[216.229.13.10]> "G. James Berigan" <usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org> writes:
>Okay, but there's still the merge syntax to consider:
I think you are confusing two issues here. We are not currently planning
any variety of mvgroup that implies a merging, because everybody says the
implementation is so horrendous that noone will ever do it. So at the
moment, all our draft says is that, in a simple mvgroup, if both groups
already exist, it is sufficient to rmgroup one and create the other (old
articles remain in whichever group they were already in; all new articles
go to the new group). It says you MAY try to merge them if you know how,
but threatens you with the most horrible MUSTs if you get it wrong :-( .
> mvgroup old.groups.* new.group moderated
So let us just consider the simple case where you are trying to rename a
simple group and make it moderated at the same time. The alternatives
would appear to be:
1. moderate the oldgroup first (with newgroup). then mvgroup
2. mvgroup first, then moderate it.
3. Do both together, with some special syntax.
You are proposing (3), with a 'moderated' flag. Fair enough, but how then
do you do the reverse operation (renaming a moderated group, and at the
same time unmoderating it)? We do not have an 'unmoderated' flag (I put
it in, and was told to take it out.
I think I could live with (1) or (2), considering it is likely to be a
rare occurrence.
NOTE: I would certainly expect the default situation for a simple mvgroup
message to be to leave the moderation status as it was.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5