 | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo
|
|
(...) That's what I'm hoping people will say generally. Not too much talk of DUPLO trains in the lugnet.trains group anyway, right? (...) This one is a real challenge because of the gatewayed lego-robotics mailing list and because the current (...) (25 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo
|
|
(...) No. Use fully spelled out names, they are easier to remember. We don't all use "I" for variable names any more, either. But my real point didn't come across very clearly. I think lugnet.trains, with a charter that allows both system, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
|
(...) Also, from the AR standpoint, totally spelled-out names are virtually guaranteed to be forward-compatible with all future names. For example, imagine if it was 1989 and MT meant Model Team, and along came M:Tron. :) (...) I agree with that. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
|
(...) I'm not exactly an NNTP expert, but a header-field sounds like a very cool idea, because it would allow posts about specific sets to appear in any newsgroup. If Mr. Gonzalez posts one of his way-cool alternate models in lugnet.cad.dat, he (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
|
Todd's very detailed post shows he's thinking about all this so I won't worry for now. I'm just not sure that the nntp technology will stretch all the way to an arbitrary setup (of groups and their associativities) controlled by metadata. If it (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
