 | | Re: Database Piece Count —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | (...) I propose that a "submission form" be created for data to be added to the Guide. I hold no guilt over suggesting this because I am blissfully unaware of the work that would be involved ;] There are a lot of times I'm foraging around in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) I agree, such a form will definitely generate more input, since it'll be easier for people to submit data. Maybe make it a "member only" feature, that way we can be sure where it came from... Of course, I wouldn't want the updates to be done (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | (canceled) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) how about just have it autopost to the admin.db newsgroup? that way it's on record, anyone can see what's been submitted, etc...? (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Could do... I don't think the remailer is set up that way currently though. Why don't you hack around with a form that uses it and see if you can autopost to lugnet.test by mailing to the news gateway or something? What Todd did for me is just (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) could do that, but assuming that the cgi is run on the lugnet server, it'd be a waste of resources to do cgi-to-smtp-to-nntp, when the cgi could just inject the message to the NG. (...) nod... though if we limit this form to members only, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) A waste of *computing* resources yes. But not a waste of development resources, because it's already done. (reuse what exists before embarking on development of new, unless there is some huge reason not to reuse (1) ) Note that the current (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) ahhh... a reason like the if you just mailed it to the group, someone would have to auth the message? :) though that might be a good thing, if we allow people to put in just any email as the "from", we'd want to make sure that it's a valid (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Which is why I am thinking, let it be mailed to some lucky DB admin for review... (do you guys take turns watching, or is it whoever gets to fix it first, or what?) rather than posting it. That completely reuses the componentry that exists (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) either way works for me. I just like the fact that it's viewable by all, so people can see what info was submitted - maybe help avoid double postings. If someone wants to flood the newsgroup, they can now just as easily... And if we want it by (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well how do you prevent person A looking, fixing, person B looking, realising it's fixed, person C looking, realising it's fixed, etc? Probably not a big deal if there aren't TOO many people helping out. (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) you're right - right now it's not a problem. What _I_ would do if I thought it was? reply to each message once it's done - very similar to the way Jenn and I deal with incoming Inventories to peeron.com... That way, if a message in the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Hm, I got it. In fact the following proposal, assuming there is a curator named for the admin.db group so they can edit FTX, requires NO programming or changes within LUGNET at all! - Set up a hotmail (yahoo, or whatever... a peeron account (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) But if I follow this correctly, the only "link" to submitting info to the Guide will be on this page: (URL) me that still falls into the category of "out-of-the-way". I don't imagine the majority of LUGNET users venture into the .admin (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) True, but... (...) Phase 2! In phase one, hang it where I suggested because it means NO, ZIP, NADA, ZERO change to LUGNET code. Let the heavy users start using it and work the bugs out and if it looks good, THEN lobby to get the template (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I may be wrong, but methinks the only reason you jumped in here in the first place was because you thought it would make you look cool to talk about it because you've got special stuff set up for you and other people don't, and because you (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I agree, and more importantly, it gives things a higher probability of being double-checked, since everything is more visible, which is one of the reasons this newsgroup exists. A real ticket system with groupware stuff would be much better, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Dan doesn't need an unsolicited lecture about this from the sidelines. (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It wouldn't work. It would get blocked. (...) Actually there are lots and lots of them, and there have been since 1994, but they tend not to stay up for very long, or have access restrictions, or aren't very flexible. (...) I get bcc'd on (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) No, you're the only one using it. A couple of years ago it was used by ldraw.org -- I wrote a simple remailer for Terry Keller to use for parts voting when the one he had been using at some other site suddenly went dead. I took that and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Database Piece Count — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Kyle, I totally agree and always hoped to have something like this in place...never got around to it...it's a big task, but as Larry pointed out, it could be done in smaller steps. (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
