[BioSQL-l] [Open-bio-l] Fwd: BioSQL mailing list

[Hilmar Lapp]

FWD to make this go into the archive for later retrieval. -hl

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ewan Birney <birney@ebi.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002  12:53:28  AM US/Pacific
> To: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@gnf.org>
> Cc: bioperl-l@bioperl.org, OBDA <open-bio-l@open-bio.org>
> Subject: Re: [Open-bio-l] Fwd: BioSQL mailing list
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>
>> At ISMB we said that we better separate out the biosql discussions
>> into a dedicated mailing list (bioperl isn't really low-traffic
>> anymore anyway). Thanks to ChrisD, there is now a mailing list
>> biosql-l@open-bio.org. Those who are into biosql or interested in
>> the discussion or generally like to lurk on lists, may want to
>> subscribe, as the the biosql related topics will move to that within
>> the next days (probably).
>>
>> Note that no-one has been auto-subscribed.
>>
>> Also, I suggest to move bioperl-db related discussions to that list
>> as well, as both are quite entwined at this point (there's the
>> markerdb in bioperl-db too though). Does that make sense? Or is it
>> better to create another list, or is keeping bioperl-db in the
>> bioperl-list favored?
>
>
> Tough call. I suspect you should make a "kernel space/user space
> distinction" -
>
>
>   - when things are just to do with how bioperl-db binds to BioSQL then
> that's a "biosql" only topic
>
>   - when things are just about the object model of Bioperl that's a
> bioperl topic, but might cross post to biosql as the object design has
> consequences on the relational design
>
>   - when things are to with coordination of bioperl and biosql (eg,
> branches) then by definition that's a cross post
>
>
>
> Cross posting is bad, but so is just-one-big-mailing list. Time for
> everyone to get threaded email readers so cross-posting doesn't 
> become a
> headache...
>
>
>
>
>
>