 | | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | (...) I thought we took this already to a conclusion a few months ago. AFAIR, I think Todd flatly rejected it. I think it is a good idea, but it is me after all, and I am weird. I'll let the all-mighty Todd craft the ever elegant answer to your (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) I think market.theme was preffered over theme.market, but none were seen as being better than the existing setup. As user numbers increase I expect things will change... but who knows when the numbers will begin to justify that? I suppose (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I don't remember flatly rejecting it, but I remember a lot of opinions on both sides of the issue -- people who think it would be a good idea and people who think it would be a bad idea. More likely (and I lean toward thinking perhaps it's (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | (...) I (...) after (...) P. (...) both (...) who (...) I remember that. There was a lot of discussion about it. (...) The (...) calls (...) always (...) website (...) All right. My memories of this are rather foggy, I guess. This sounds like a good (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: compartmentalized dorks redux —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | (...) Either would be good. I could come up with advantages of either way. I have a preference for appending the .marketplace groups to the theme hierarchies for ease of reading via the web interface. On the other hand, placing them all within a (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
