c.l.py.{help,future,library,language,misc,advocacy,gui,platform-dependent,moderated,ternary,peps,whining,flamewar,timbot,obfuscated,goto}

Nomad nomad*** at ***freemail.absa.co.za
Wed Feb 12 22:05:14 CET 2003


On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:02:30 +1300, "Greg Ewing (using
news.cis.dfn.de)" <me at privacy.net> wrote:

>Gerrit Holl wrote:
>
>> possible options are:
>> 
>> 	* c.l.py.help
>> 	* c.l.py.future
>> 	* c.l.py.library
>> 	* c.l.py.language
>> 	* c.l.py.misc
>> 	* c.l.py.advocacy
>> 	* c.l.py.gui
>> 	* c.l.py.platform-dependant
>> 	* c.l.py.moderated
>
>
>Please, no. I've seen this sort of split done before (e.g.
>comp.sys.mac) and it doesn't really work. It's often unclear
>which sub-group a message belongs in, or it clearly belongs
>in more than one sub-group, so you end up with huge amounts
>of cross-posting.
>
>Leave the group the way it is, and get used to using the
>"Mark thread as read" command! (And if your newsreader
>doesn't have one, get one that does.)

Or even a newsreader that allows you to explicitly ignore threads
completely (filtering is also good).

Backk on topic though, I agree with Greg -- splitting is a bad idea in
a case like this -- especially when the proposed spit fans out into so
many different (child) groups.

With a few filters and flagged threads, c.l.py is fine as it is.

Just my £0.02

-- 
Nomad

Wondering of the vast emptyness of the 'net
in search of something cool.




More information about the Python-list mailing list