To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 3752
3751  |  3753
Subject: 
Re: Robotics sub-groups
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:45:10 GMT
Viewed: 
791 times
  
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 has 1 Reply:
  Re: Robotics sub-groups
 
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 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Robotics sub-groups
 
(...) Well, I want the resolution that's most beneficial to the individual projects and most enjoyable for participants. Fine resolution is good as long as it lives up to the promise of providing for more focused discussions but bad if it is so fine (...) (25 years ago, 14-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)

23 Messages in This Thread:








Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR