- From: Nick Winlund <ndwinl_at_yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
> things must be coherent, one can not allow for > independently written > two versions of programs and this is also true for > documentation > sources - having two lists is the same as having two > independent > comedi websites Not true. Documentation versions and code branches/trunks often are independent of one another, yet can be concurrent in terms of parallel activity but not precisely equal or '' on the same page '' all the time. What about ... redundancy? If the primary list goes offline or data is missing then there is a secondary list to fall back to. What about ... reducing or eliminating conflicts of interest? If the moderator here were to give full rights and authentication of the old list to someone else not connected to him ( to whom decided on by voting ) then potential conflicts of interest would be contained to each list, based on who is moderating it and why they are there. I dissent with the whole '' delete it and forget it '' monoculture. This pattern of behavior is not conducive to proper versioning, adequate oversight and recording what went right and what went wrong in computing history. salvage the list peace .. [/~] Nick W. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on 2007-10-28Z22:49:34