split of /usr/local/news/db

[James Ralston]

I posted the following message last Wednesday, and absolutely no one
commented on it, either on the list, or in private email.

I find it difficult to believe that no one disagrees with the values I
came up with.  ;)

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions?

James

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, I wrote:

> On 11 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > People want active, newsgroups, active.times, etc. in a different
> > directory than the history file; we should figure out what to call
> > those directories.
> 
> The organizational split seems to be along data files which track
> newsgroups on the server (small, mildly variable) and data files
> which track articles on the server (large, highly variable).
> 
> Perhaps we should split them as follows:
> 
>     /usr/local/news/db
> 
> becomes
> 
>     /usr/local/news/db/articles
>     /usr/local/news/db/groups
> 
> E.g.:
> 
>     /usr/local/news/db/.news.daily
>     /usr/local/news/db/articles/history
>     /usr/local/news/db/articles/history.dir
>     /usr/local/news/db/articles/history.hash
>     /usr/local/news/db/articles/history.index
>     /usr/local/news/db/groups/active
>     /usr/local/news/db/groups/active.old
>     /usr/local/news/db/groups/active.times
>     /usr/local/news/db/groups/newsgroups
> 
> I'm reluctant to abandon the "db" directory; IMO, it's a very useful
> place to organize subdirs for database[-like] files.  Personally, I
> wouldn't want to see the "articles" and "groups" subdirs at the
> /usr/local/news level.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> James