Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.lang.ada:10900 comp.os.msdos.djgpp:2337
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!news.uoregon.edu!ursula.uoregon.edu!hamlink
From: Hamilton Link <hamlink AT ursula DOT uoregon DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: GNAT electronic mailing list ready for subscriptions!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:31:58 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 71
References: <44idc7$e1h AT felix DOT seas DOT gwu DOT edu> <dewar DOT 812468722 AT schonberg>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ursula.uoregon.edu
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

I whole-heartedly agree!  I've been a part of mailing-list groups, and 
information is all-too-frequently sent from one party to another withougt 
being sent to everyone.  (I have nothing against privacy, but it sort of 
defeats the point of having the mailing list).  I hope people will 
continue to use this news group, and keep mail for individual discussions.

hamlink
another link to the land of Ada . . .

On 30 Sep 1995, Robert Dewar wrote:

> 
> I am a little surprised by Mike's announcement of the GNAT mailing list.
> I would see it as a step backwards to go from an openly accessible
> news group discussion mode for GNAT related matters to a closed
> mailing list. What do I mean by closed here? I mean that people browsing
> around for Ada related stuff won't see the traffic on that mailing list.
> It seems desirable to me that people browsing CLA see the discussion
> of GNAT and know that they can get hold of a free compiler. It seems
> a step backwards to hide this discussion.
> 
> We have several times discussed (in this newsgroup and elsewhere) the
> idea of making a subgroup for GNAT discussions, and that is ultimately
> a good idea, but every time we discussed that in the past the consensus
> was that the volume was not high enough to warrant this separation.
> 
> It would be a shame if all people browsing CLA see is lanuage war
> stuff, and mandate moans. I think that technical discussion of GNAT
> related issues is one useful component of CLA right now.
> 
> The genesis of the idea that Mike is following up was the suggestion
> of setting up a mailing list specifically for Solaris users of GNAT to
> discuss technical issues of installation and use related to Solaris. That
> seems like a good idea, since occasionally we do see messages about
> specific installation which would be better handled by a more focused
> mailing list.
> When this more restricted idea was discussed earlier, I noted to Mike
> that ACT would definitely have people on the list and be glad to
> participate.
> 
> However, as far as the more general list goes, I really prefer to see
> the general discussions continue on CLA. For example, if someone does
> something in Ada they don't understand and want help, I would rather
> they go to CLA than Mike's mailing list, so that a wider audience
> sees the resulting discussion. Sure if there is a GNAT bug involved,
> it should go to report AT gnat DOT com, but many of the "GNAT related"
> discussions are just discussions of Ada things, and should reach
> a wide audience (consider for example, the current discussion of
> placement of primitive operations). I would think it a shame if
> people think that because they are using GNAT, their Ada questions
> should be buried in the mailing list.
> 
> Consequently, at least speaking for me, I will continue to read CLA
> and respond to GNAT-related stuff there where appropriate, but I don't
> plan to join Mike's mailing list, and I hope that anyone mailing stuff
> to that mailing list will consider posting to CLA as well if it is of
> general interest.
> 
> I still think it would be useful to persue the original idea of highly
> focussed (system specific) mailing lists on the use and installation
> of GNAT. Installation is an area where a lot of people need hand holding
> (95% at least of the installation questions we get at report AT gnat DOT com
> are the result of not being able to follow the instructions carefully!)
> and also an area where the resulting messages are definitely NOT of
> general Ada interest.
> 
> So I hope someone persues the original idea here!
> 
> 
> 
>