| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Tim Courtney <tim.courtney@SPAMCAKE.zacktron.com> wrote:
> > > I think we have bigger fish to fry w/r/t LUGNET than moving it to .org.
> > > That's a decision we can make later, once the new infrastructure for
> > > maintaining LUGNET is in place.
> >
> > Hey, there's plenty of oil and breading.
> > But seriously, names are important.
>
> Yep, they're important. I didn't mean to come across as implying
> considering this was a bad idea. I just would rather see peoples'
> creative energies put into the transition at this point, and then
> consider the name change later. That's all. One for the back burner,
> in my view.
I don't see it as an all-or-nothing thing. Setting up a secondary new
box as *.lugnet.org is definitely easier and less problematic than setting
it up as *.beta.lugnet.com in the near-term, because of various DNS issues.
Setting up lugnet.org soon is an excellent transitional step.
I'm glad that lugnet.org was suggested, and bringing a new box up that way
will give us a flavor of how it "feels" for the URL to be on a .org domain,
and see if that feels more right or more wrong than a .com domain. (I'm
not against a wholesale moving of lugnet.com to lugnet.org someday but just
because we wouldn't do the actual move anytime soon doesn't mean we can't
bring up test content there sooner rather than later.) Initially, the new
box will have to be on a separate second-level domain, so that might as well
be lugnet.org.
--Todd
[xfut -> .admin.general]
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
144 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
