On Friday, November 13, 2020 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-6 tbp1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *New Google Groups to replace classic Groups on Nov. 16 - *
>
>
> https://its.umich.edu/communication/collaboration/google/update/new-google-groups-replace-classic-groups-nov-16
>
Thanks for this. I have a vague memory
*New Google Groups to replace classic Groups on Nov. 16 - *
https://its.umich.edu/communication/collaboration/google/update/new-google-groups-replace-classic-groups-nov-16
On Friday, November 13, 2020 at 8:17:15 AM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 3:00:05 PM
On Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-6 Edward K. Ream wrote:
> Imo, the so-called "classic" form of google groups was significantly
better than the "new improved" version.
I do notice a significant improvement in typing responsiveness. That's not
nothing. Otoh, I'll now be using t
Yesterday marked an important milestone in the never-ending effort to
simplify Leo's code base. Leo now has a new pattern that makes implementing
undo/redo straightforward.
I won't show the new pattern here, because of the new limitations on syntax
coloring in this group. However, the first co
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:01 AM jkn wrote:
> Yeah, for a while an alternate link with (something like) "ui=1" in there
> worked. But it was only a matter of time before Google decided that their
> new shiny interface was somehow better.
>
> I was concerned originally that having a 'google group'
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:11 PM Thomas Passin wrote:
> I'm still using classic groups. When they changed me over, I disliked
> the new skin and found some link to get back, but I forget where it was.
> And yes, no ability to edit, GRRR. I figured that at some point, we'd all
> get stuck with th
Yeah, for a while an alternate link with (something like) "ui=1" in there
worked. But it was only a matter of time before Google decided that their
new shiny interface was somehow better.
I was concerned originally that having a 'google group' rather that (eg) a
usenet group would be too much o
