From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 09:16:24 CDT
In <200107231855.OAA09403@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>I agree with #1, and that seems to sum up what we should do here. When a
>group changes the major site will or won't drop the old one, at which
>point the old group will become far less used, and eventually die for
>all intents and purposes.
But that is not what is observed to happen in practice. Experience
suggests that the old groups tend not to get deleted on many systems, and
linger on for years, carrying articles between small (and poorly
connected) groups of users. The main benefit of mvgroup is that the two
processes (creation and removal) get coupled together, so that a sysadmin
who deliberately wanted to retain both would have to work quite hard at
it (and probably wouldn't bother, as oppsoed to the present situation
where he may have to intervene manually to remove the old one).
>I don't know that we need it, I don't know that we'd use it, and I don't
>think it belongs in this RFC in any case.
There are two separate issues to consider:
1. Would it be a useful feature to have, assuming it worked?
2. Can it (or is it likely to) be implemented on a timescale that would
ensure it would be regarded as normal practice in a few years time?
When it was first suggested on this list, the answer to 1 was a resounding
yes. IIRC correctly, it was one of the features welcomed on the newsgroups
when our draft #4 was issued, and it is certainly the case that
suggestions for renaming groups are made regularly on the config groups,
and are usually shot down on the grounds of the uncertainties of the
newgroup/rmgroup method.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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