On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Mark Miesfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> I'm considering installing VS 2008...are you using that version for
>> building ooRexx yet? Wondering if there are any issues with using it.
>
> Rick,
>
> I have VS 2008 on two syste
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I'm considering installing VS 2008...are you using that version for
> building ooRexx yet? Wondering if there are any issues with using it.
Rick,
I have VS 2008 on two systems now. There are no problems I've seen.
I upgraded to it from 20
Mark,
I'm considering installing VS 2008...are you using that version for
building ooRexx yet? Wondering if there are any issues with using it.
Rick
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for
Multiple mail archives are not uncommon. Many Apache projects, for
example, use archives a Nabble, Apache mod mbox, mail-archive, MARC,
and GMANE. The Apache mod mbox is the Apache equivalent to the
sourceforge archive, the rest are additional archives that the lists
must be registered with.
Ric
> Ok, I guess I should have tried a little harder on my
> searches...I agree this would be a bit redundant.
A bit of redundancy doesn't hurt at all: "digital data doesn't exist unless
it is in at least two places" :-).
And if incorporated the NetRexx archives too -- one place to go --
definite
nabble is a giant repository of mailing list archives. A lot of open
source projects have nabble archives for their mailing lists rather
than choosing to host their own. However, since sourceforge appears
to have searchable archives, I'm not sure there's much point in
duplicating this.
Rick
On
I'm not sure what nabble is, but I think it would be a good thing for the
ooRexx mailing lists to be more visible
Jon
On 18 February 2010 15:22, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Ok, I guess I should have tried a little harder on my searches...I
> agree this would be a bit redundant.
>
> Rick
>
> On Thu, F
Ok, I guess I should have tried a little harder on my searches...I
agree this would be a bit redundant.
Rick
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> I'm conside
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> I'm considering setting up a nabble account for archiving the oorexx
>> mailing lists. One advantage of using nabble is the archive is
>> generally internet searchable. The sourcefo
Sounds good to me. Many people use google to find answers, and
probably more should. Don't know about nabble, never heard of it.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I'm considering setting up a nabble account for archiving the oorexx
> mailing lists. One advantage of using nabb
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I'm considering setting up a nabble account for archiving the oorexx
> mailing lists. One advantage of using nabble is the archive is
> generally internet searchable. The sourceforge archives don't appear
> to be. Having the archive set up
I think this is a good idea.
+1
best regards,
René Jansen.
On 18 feb 2010, at 15:28, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I'm considering setting up a nabble account for archiving the oorexx
> mailing lists. One advantage of using nabble is the archive is
> generally internet searchable. The sourceforge a
I'm considering setting up a nabble account for archiving the oorexx
mailing lists. One advantage of using nabble is the archive is
generally internet searchable. The sourceforge archives don't appear
to be. Having the archive set up would give the project a touch more
visibility. Looking for s
13 matches
Mail list logo
