 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) I like the format of lugnet.lego.foo only for official postings, with automagic duplication into lugnet.lego.foo.d (iscussion) because I think it is more clear than anything else would be. But then you have a .lego.* group that we're al (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) The lugnet.lego.foo for official posts and lugnet.lego.foo.d for discussion format doesn't work naturally with Lugnet. The reason is how groups are coalesced in the web view. I think it is valuable that it be easy to see just the official (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) One quick thing I haven't mentioned in much detail yet: the way groups are coalesced currently in the web view will probably always be a default view, but there will be other views (customizable) and folders to store personal article (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) Sounds good, and when complete, will probably make the actual structure mostly irrelevant, which is good because a hierarchical tree can never properly represent the associations between different things, and the associations which are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Absolutely. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
