[gclist] this list vs. newsgroup

[David Chase]

> > The volume on this list is getting quite large.  I suggest we transform it
> > into a newsgroup.
> 
> No great objection here.

Nor here.

> Do keep in mind that if there's an unmoderated newsgroup, we're going to 
> see a fair number of messages along the lines of "what is GC?", "GC is 
> stupid, just free what you're done with", and "what's this group about?"

In which case, we'll attempt to put convincing answers in the FAQ.
I would really like to keep the technical content relatively high,
because I think there is still need for exchange of information at
the research and near-research level -- witness the recent discussion
of whether it is "better" (overall) to do conservative or precise
collection when using C as an intermediate language.  I'm pretty 
far over on the procedural-languages-optimize-them-like-Fortran
side of things, but I know some people in New Jersey are not.

Along the lines of FAQ access, how difficult is it to also make it 
available in text form via an robot-server?  It'd be quite nice to 
have a moderated newsgroup that also appended something along the 
lines of:

  For a copy of the FAQ, see:
     http://www.centerline.com/people/chase/GC/FAQ.html
  or for a text copy, send mail to
     gc-faq-request@iecc.com 

to each message that was sent out.  The robot, of course, would work 
with check the date on the cached text copy, and recompute it if 
the html version had changed.  That still doesn't take care of texinfo
format (which several people also requested).

I'm a big believer in the general laziness of people; if they have 
to work hard to find information (where negotiating FTP is working
hard), they won't bother.

And, by-the-way, you lazy people, has anyone looked at the FAQ in 
the last couple of days (since 3/5/96)?  Any comments?  Any additions?
If so, please send them to me -- chase@centerline.com -- and I'll 
do my best (in my copious free time) to do something useful with 
them.  I regard the FAQ as still under construction at this time; 
for instance, it looks to me like I need to include a section on 
finalization.

David Chase