Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-02 Thread Upayavira
Joerg, How hard would it be to switch to having: build stable or build unstable instead of build webapp? That would enable someone to choose right up front, without having to do any file editing. Regards, Upayavira Joerg Heinicke wrote: Tim Larson tim at keow.org writes: include=true

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-02 Thread Joerg Heinicke
Upayavira uv at upaya.co.uk writes: Joerg, How hard would it be to switch to having: build stable or build unstable instead of build webapp? That would enable someone to choose right up front, without having to do any file editing. I will add my thoughts to the excluding

[Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Joerg Heinicke
Le 31 mars 04, 23:46, Joerg Heinicke a crit : ...WDYT? Change only the documentation (to use true|false) or additionally the property names from exclude to include I'm for changing from exclude to include, but you might want to ask for a [VOTE], or at least a quick vote as this is

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Joerg Heinicke dijo: So now the vote: [+1 ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [ ] include.block.blockname=true|false IMHO backward compatibility is important. Antonio Gallardo

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Joerg Heinicke
Joerg Heinicke joerg.heinicke at gmx.de writes: As I wrote in my mail, the solution I have is partly backward compatible, this means a local.blocks.properties in the old style will still work and the blocks selection will be as expected expected for the case exclude.block.blockname=false is

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Stephan Michels
Am Do, den 01.04.2004 schrieb Joerg Heinicke um 14:39: So now the vote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [+1] include.block.blockname=true|false Stephan.

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Torsten Curdt
IMHO backward compatibility is important. not here IMHO ...so [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [x] include.block.blockname=true|false cheers -- Torsten

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
...So now the vote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [+1 ] include.block.blockname=true|false -Bertrand

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Upayavira
Joerg Heinicke wrote: Le 31 mars 04, 23:46, Joerg Heinicke a crit : ...WDYT? Change only the documentation (to use true|false) or additionally the property names from exclude to include I'm for changing from exclude to include, but you might want to ask for a [VOTE], or at

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Reinhard Ptz
Joerg Heinicke wrote: So now the vote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [x] include.block.blockname=true|false -- Reinhard

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Ugo Cei
[ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [X] include.block.blockname=true|false Ugo

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Upayavira wrote: Joerg Heinicke wrote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [+1] include.block.blockname=true|false Exclude always seemed really odd to a native English speaker. It was always the wrong way around. I trust opinion of native English speaker - very scarce resource nowadays!

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Marc Portier
Upayavira wrote: Joerg Heinicke wrote: snip / So now the vote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [+1] include.block.blockname=true|false is my vote too... Joerg Exclude always seemed really odd to a native English speaker. It was always the wrong way around. Upayavira well,

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Tony Collen
Joerg Heinicke wrote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [X] include.block.blockname=true|false Better to use a single positive instead of a double negative ;) Better later than never, Tony

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties [OT]

2004-04-01 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Le 1 avr. 04, à 21:41, Vadim Gritsenko a écrit : ...I trust opinion of native English speaker - very scarce resource nowadays! ;-) me I can find to Vadim that you serioulsly think when Vadim you something write, almost. So fortunateless I tendency to very much agreement, thanks Vadim for the

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Tim Larson
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:41:32PM -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: Upayavira wrote: Joerg Heinicke wrote: [ ] exclude.block.blockname=true|false [+1] include.block.blockname=true|false Exclude always seemed really odd to a native English speaker. It was always the wrong way around.

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Joerg Heinicke
On 01.04.2004 22:00, Tim Larson wrote: Likewise. BTW, am I missing something or can these two options be made completely compatible, as in: include=true == exclude=false No. include=false == exclude=true Yes. Using condition property=exclude.block.blockname not istrue

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Mark Lundquist
On Apr 1, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Tony Collen wrote: Better to use a single positive instead of a double negative ;) Or in other words, better not to use a double negative :-) If my +1 counted, I'd give it to [X] include.block.blockname=true|false I don't know if it's because I'm a native English

Re: [Vote] notation of blocks selection properties

2004-04-01 Thread Tim Larson
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:28:22AM +0200, Joerg Heinicke wrote: On 01.04.2004 22:00, Tim Larson wrote: Likewise. BTW, am I missing something or can these two options be made completely compatible, as in: include=true == exclude=false No. include=false == exclude=true Yes.