You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Doug McCune <do...@dougmccune.com> on 2012/02/04 19:39:56 UTC
[Discussion] [Discussion]
Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread? Aren't all
threads, unless otherwise specified, discussion threads? If you don't
include the [Discussion] subject-tag are we assuming it's not a discussion
and not a vote, so therefore it's... what?
Re: Into Widnows 8 Metro
Posted by Martin Heidegger <mh...@leichtgewicht.at>.
Internet Explorer 10 does enable Plugins but Metro(browser within the
new ui) does not - as for now. This is in sync with the decision of
Adobe to drop the mobile browser support: In other words: in modern
browser systems they want Flash Player to be gone. I am interested in
Air for Windows 8 though.
yours
Martin.
However: I am looking forward to
On 08/02/2012 08:08, FRANKLIN GARZON wrote:
> Good day, any people know what was at the end? Adobe Flash will stay into windows 8 metro too? (Internet Explorer 10).
>
>
> Franklin Garzón
>
> Regional Development Manager
>
> MCITP Microsoft SQLServer
>
>
> *Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
>
> 094496862
>
>
Re: Into Widnows 8 Metro
Posted by Doug Arthur <do...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, FRANKLIN GARZON <fg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good day, any people know what was at the end? Adobe Flash will stay into windows 8 metro too? (Internet Explorer 10).
>
>
> Franklin Garzón
>
> Regional Development Manager
>
> MCITP Microsoft SQLServer
>
>
> *Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
>
> 094496862
>From what I understand, all plugins will be disabled in Metro (IE 10)
by default. But users will be able to switch back to a mode where they
can have plugins, but this will not be possible on the tablets or
mobile devices.
- Doug
Into Widnows 8 Metro
Posted by FRANKLIN GARZON <fg...@hotmail.com>.
Good day, any people know what was at the end? Adobe Flash will stay into windows 8 metro too? (Internet Explorer 10).
Franklin Garzón
Regional Development Manager
MCITP Microsoft SQLServer
*Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
094496862
Re: [Discussion] [Discussion]
Posted by Pierangelo Mancusi <pi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for Piergiorgio
:)
Il giorno 07 febbraio 2012 08:54, Piergiorgio Niero <
piergiorgio.niero@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> my humble opinion is:
> all threads are discussion, if we're going to have many threads on a
> specific topic just move those threads in another mailing list.
> special things such as voting and polling people are best done with other
> tools such as google forms and others. i personally found ridiculous 100+
> mail/day with "+1,+20,+N" for voting the logo.
>
> ciao
> pigiuz
>
>
> Il giorno 04 febbraio 2012 20:43, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha
> scritto:
>
> >
> > On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Greg Reddin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my mobile device.
> > >
> > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Doug McCune <do...@dougmccune.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread?
> > >
> > > About the only time that's necessary is when you want to discuss a vote
> > thread in progress. It's a good idea to fork that to a discussion thread
> > and use the tag to make it clear.
> >
> > IMHO it is also a good idea to prepare for a [VOTE] thread by first
> having
> > a [DISCUSS] thread (that's the process on private when discussing
> possible
> > new PPMC and committers.) sometimes as this thread implies that is pretty
> > obvious.
> >
> > In a high volume list this will call attention to an issue. Generally we
> > should be striving to achieve "LAZY CONSENSUS" when doing that it should
> be
> > a [DISCUSS] or [PROPOSAL] thread. A [VOTE] would then be called if
> > consensus is not present.
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discussion] [Discussion]
Posted by Piergiorgio Niero <pi...@gmail.com>.
my humble opinion is:
all threads are discussion, if we're going to have many threads on a
specific topic just move those threads in another mailing list.
special things such as voting and polling people are best done with other
tools such as google forms and others. i personally found ridiculous 100+
mail/day with "+1,+20,+N" for voting the logo.
ciao
pigiuz
Il giorno 04 febbraio 2012 20:43, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha
scritto:
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Greg Reddin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sent from my mobile device.
> >
> > On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Doug McCune <do...@dougmccune.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread?
> >
> > About the only time that's necessary is when you want to discuss a vote
> thread in progress. It's a good idea to fork that to a discussion thread
> and use the tag to make it clear.
>
> IMHO it is also a good idea to prepare for a [VOTE] thread by first having
> a [DISCUSS] thread (that's the process on private when discussing possible
> new PPMC and committers.) sometimes as this thread implies that is pretty
> obvious.
>
> In a high volume list this will call attention to an issue. Generally we
> should be striving to achieve "LAZY CONSENSUS" when doing that it should be
> a [DISCUSS] or [PROPOSAL] thread. A [VOTE] would then be called if
> consensus is not present.
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > Greg
> >
>
>
Re: [Discussion] [Discussion]
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Greg Reddin wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Doug McCune <do...@dougmccune.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread?
>
> About the only time that's necessary is when you want to discuss a vote thread in progress. It's a good idea to fork that to a discussion thread and use the tag to make it clear.
IMHO it is also a good idea to prepare for a [VOTE] thread by first having a [DISCUSS] thread (that's the process on private when discussing possible new PPMC and committers.) sometimes as this thread implies that is pretty obvious.
In a high volume list this will call attention to an issue. Generally we should be striving to achieve "LAZY CONSENSUS" when doing that it should be a [DISCUSS] or [PROPOSAL] thread. A [VOTE] would then be called if consensus is not present.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
Regards,
Dave
>
> Greg
>
Re: [Discussion] [Discussion]
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Doug McCune <do...@dougmccune.com> wrote:
> Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread?
About the only time that's necessary is when you want to discuss a vote thread in progress. It's a good idea to fork that to a discussion thread and use the tag to make it clear.
Greg
Re: [Discussion] [Discussion]
Posted by Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>.
On 2/4/2012 1:39 PM, Doug McCune wrote:
> Is it really necessary to subject-tag any [Discussion] thread? Aren't all
> threads, unless otherwise specified, discussion threads? If you don't
> include the [Discussion] subject-tag are we assuming it's not a discussion
> and not a vote, so therefore it's... what?
I've gotten in the habit of changing the 'vote' to discussion if I
respond to a vote thread where a discussion has started.
Beyond that I haven't been paying attention.
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust