At 11:17 AM +0000 11/24/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:39:48PM -0800, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
 > If you're developing modules that work with DBI, it is not always
 unreasonable to ask questions here rather than in dbi-users, though
 many of the questions could also be asked on dbi-users and would be
 appropriate there.

Yeap. Here's a simple test: If the answer to the main question is likely to be of interest to dbi-users then that's a good place to ask it.

Simply post to the one list you think is most appropriate for that
specific question. (Your notion of "most appropriate" will naturally
evolve over time.)

If you don't get useful answers then try posting to another list
(perhaps after improving the question based on whatever feedback
you did get from the first list).

Thanks for the replies. I think what I will do is this:

If my question or comment can be of interest to both DBI users *and* DBI developers, then I'll post to just dbi-users. Only if its a matter that users wouldn't be interested in, which is probably rare, will it post to dbi-dev.

FYI, I understand the need to improve questions based on feedback. Particularly in posts to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where one of the veteran maintainers made a rare statement in reference to one of my modules where he had no idea what it did, despite it being heavily documented.

At 10:39 PM -0800 11/23/04, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
If posted only to the poop-group, they  won't be seen by me.  What is
it, and why should I even want to think about the possibility of
subscribing?

FYI, poop-group is an officially recognized list by perl.org, and it is about modules that provide such things as object persistence solutions using databases. That list barely gets 1 message per month in traffic.


Anyway, I consider this thread to have run its course.  Thanks again.

-- Darren Duncan

Reply via email to