| |
I also think that RcxCC can perfectly live in the nqc group.
One suggestion: it might be good to have a more general announcement
group such that e.g. new releases of RcxCC can also be announced to
people that are not yet using nqc. Something like
lugnet.robotics.announce
Mark Overmars
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~markov/lego/
Dave Baum wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.1130f36287de87dc9896ec@lugnet.com>, lehman@javanet.com
> (Todd Lehman) wrote:
>
> > On the one hand, I'd probably lean toward two groups .rcx.sw.nqc &
> > .rcx.sw.rcxcc if the two have different enough user bases and it didn't
> > sound like there'd be constant crossposting. (Do you think there would be?)
> > In terms of subscribing, if the people interested seriously in NQC but only
> > casually in RCXCC could subscribe to the RCXCC group via e-mail and receive
> > it in digest form, would that be useful?
> >
> > On the other hand, since RCXCC is a front-end to NQC, then it would probably
> > just make sense to have a single group for focused discussions of both NQC &
> > RCXCC discussions. Would it make perfect sense to lump them together into
> > one group and call it lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.nqc? (Certainly does to me, if
> > RCXCC exists only to serve NQC.)
> >
> > My gut tells me that keeping them together in one group is probably best,
> > especially since you felt it was worth raising the issue.
>
>
> I agree with your gut- go with one group at first. I suspect it will be
> a relatively quiet group anyway.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
