Ruby-talk, comp.lang.ruby, ruby-talk-google

Ruby
1

Where does the third fit into the equation?

I browse ruby-talk via the comp.lang.ruby group on Google G…
Barring gateway troubles, I think I see posts by everyone on the
mailing list. When I post via comp.lang.ruby, I see my posts being
archived in the ruby-talk archive, appearing in ruby-talk-google, and
being responded to by those I know use the mailing list.

So it looks to me like ruby-talk and comp.lang.ruby are syncing well
(on the whole). Why is there a “ruby-talk-google” group on google,
whose description states:

“This is a mirror list of the offical ruby-talk mailing list. It serves
as a replacement for the old mail<->news gateway (comp.lang.ruby). It
exists to provide access to the mailing list via the convenience of
Google G. web-based client. (272 members)”

Is it somehow more reliable? Should I be using that instead of
comp.lang.ruby?

2

Phrogz wrote:

It
exists to provide access to the mailing list via the convenience of
Google G. web-based client. (272 members)"

I think this is the answer, here. Someone wanted easy access via a
Google app and create it.

Is it somehow more reliable? Should I be using that instead of
comp.lang.ruby?

Plenty of people use comp.lang.ruby daily, and it actually seems to be a
bit more reliable than ruby-forum (in my limited experience), so I don’t
think you need to bother switching.

I think the whole ‘replacement’ bit was someone trying to make it sound
more important than it is.

If you’re really worried about ‘reliability’, the mailing list is pretty
much the main method here, so that would be the way to go.

Having said all that, I still use ruby-forum because it’s more
convenient for me.

3

Phrogz wrote:

whose description states:

“This is a mirror list of the offical ruby-talk mailing list. It serves
as a replacement for the old mail<->news gateway (comp.lang.ruby). It
exists to provide access to the mailing list via the convenience of
Google G. web-based client. (272 members)”

Is it somehow more reliable? Should I be using that instead of
comp.lang.ruby?

Hi–

I set this up the last time the gateway went down. At that time it
looked like the gateway was going to stay down for good. I prefer the
Google G. interface so I set up ruby-talk-google to ensure that
capability. Of course, the gateway was eventually restored thanks to
the hard work James Edward G. II and friends. So now ruby-talk-google
isn’t absolutely neccessary, but it does serve as a backup in case the
gateway ever goes down again. And it doesn’t really matter which one
you use, since ruby-talk-google just fowards all posts to ruby-talk and
vice-versa.

T.

4

On 9/5/06, Phrogz [email protected] wrote:

Where does the third fit into the equation?

I browse ruby-talk via the comp.lang.ruby group on Google G…
Barring gateway troubles, I think I see posts by everyone on the
mailing list. When I post via comp.lang.ruby, I see my posts being
archived in the ruby-talk archive, appearing in ruby-talk-google, and
being responded to by those I know use the mailing list.

So it looks to me like ruby-talk and comp.lang.ruby are syncing well
(on the whole).

Hmmmm. I wasn’t aware of the connection between ruby-talk and
comp.lang.ruby

Is that why posts appear here whose authors seem oblivious to the
ruby-talk audience? If a posting is cross-posted to comp.lang.ruby
and other groups like comp.lang.python, or comp.lang.c++ is that
information stripped out by whatever gateway links ruby-talk and
comp.lang.ruby?

Just curious.

Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

5

On 9/5/06, Rick DeNatale [email protected] wrote:

Is that why posts appear here whose authors seem oblivious to the
ruby-talk audience? If a posting is cross-posted to comp.lang.ruby
and other groups like comp.lang.python, or comp.lang.c++ is that
information stripped out by whatever gateway links ruby-talk and
comp.lang.ruby?

Yup.

-austin