Subject: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:37:01 +0100

As far as I can tell from the list traffic:

- Charles supports the inclusion of a "mvgroup" control message in 
-usefor-usepro
- All other speakers do not support this inclusion
- Nobody has any big objection to a separate experimental document 
specifying such a message, despite the fact that several people doubt 
that it will be useful or adopted.

If nobody but Charles speaks in favour of the inclusion of "mvgroup", 
I'll rule that we have rough consensus to exclude it from -usepro, no 
matter who the editor is.

If someone apart from Charles speaks in favour of its inclusion, we'll 
conduct a poll.

                  Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:22:05 GMT

>that it will be useful or adopted.

I think the discussion has been useful in highlighting the implementation
problems and the critical issues.

Essentially, it can be implemented two ways:

1. Keep both groups in existence during the overlap period.

2. Alias the old to the new (or just possibly vice versa). That has the
benefit that users need to be subscribed to only one of them (preferably
the new), but it does require a liberal interpretation of 'aliassing'. It
seems that the way aliassing is currently done in INN makes it extremely
difficult to implement that way, though it works fine in CNEWS. We have no
reports of how other servers would be affected.

There are some details concerning what you put in the Xrefs header that
need attention. But the worst that happens if you get that wrong is that
users may see the same article in both groups instead of just the first
one they read it in (but maybe only for for articles posted before the
mvgroup). That seems fixable.

The real crunch is whether User Agents need to be upgraded. The intention
of the proposal as in the present USEPRO was that it would work with
existing User Agents, with the proviso that users would need to subscribe
manually to the new group and maybe unsubscribe from the old, and that
plenty of announcements, discussion and advice would be posted in the
group(s) to be sure they were aware of this. If the WG regards automatic
resubscription within User Agents as an essential feature, then that
would be the end of the matter.

-- 
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: [email-masked]      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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:02 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> If the WG regards automatic resubscription within User Agents as
> an essential feature, then that would be the end of the matter.

I can't judge that.  What about the proposals to extract "mvgroup"
into an experimental document ?  We've to update the Usefor Charter
really soon now anyway, and could add this.

I liked the idea, but the technical details are apparently complex.
The odd effects of a manual mvgroup-emulation on GMaNe (ASRG list)
convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial.

Frank

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:50:57 -0800

> convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial.

Yeah, most of my concerns about how this should work come from talking to
larsi about doing this on Gmane.  I still have a longish list of things
that he'd really like the overview and storage subsystems to do so that
his group and article moving works better that INN just can't handle yet.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:01:27 GMT

>convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial.

Can you please give us some more details of the things that went wrong?

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:52:28 +0100

> Can you please give us some more details of the things that went wrong?

It's better if you judge it for yourself, I'm not sure that I understood
it correctly.  It's a short thread (with a solution of "lost aliases"):

<http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384>

Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:49:14 GMT

><http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384>

OK, I looked at that thread, and am not quite sure what it was all about.
However, the link that you claimed to have clicked on and not got what you
expected worked for me when I tried it. So it looks like Lars has fixed
whatever had caused the problem. Perhaps you should try clicking on it
again.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:25:18 +0100

> it looks like Lars has fixed whatever had caused the problem.

Yes, that's what he said in article number 10384.

> Perhaps you should try clicking on it again.

With Ollie's help I found a workaround to get the a link to the wanted
thread before he fixed it.  I wanted the "clickable" link for somebody 
else, I rarely use GMaNe's Web interface.

Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:02:02 GMT

>> Perhaps you should try clicking on it again.

AFAICS, GMANE does possess some pairs of newsgroups which are aliassed on
top of each other. So the interesting question is whether, using NNTP,
both versions of such groups appear to contain the same articles, and
whether you can successfully post to the group under either name.