Please note this is cross posted.
2010/1/2 James E Keenan
> Leo Lapworth wrote:
3) Phalanx
>>
>
> Though in one sense it pains me to say it, Phalanx does not need to be a
> major tab. It can be demoted to a link somewhere.
I have put it is as a tab on the right called 'old projects'.
I re
Hi, Leo :)
A few comments,
Leo Lapworth said:
2010/1/2 James E Keenan
3) Phalanx
Though in one sense it pains me to say it, Phalanx does not need to
be a major tab. It can be demoted to a link somewhere.
I have put it is as a tab on the right called 'old projects'.
I removed the 'C
James E Keenan said:
I learned a tremendous amount about testing, code coverage and
writing testable code from the Phalanx project -- knowledge which
has served me well, particularly in the Parrot project. The
approach to 'phalanx'-ing a module can be applied by anyone (and I'm
happy to men
For the record, I'll second Barbie's suggestion.
David
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Barbie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:10:48PM -0500, David Golden wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Leo Lapworth wrote:
>> > 2) Testing CPAN
>> >
>> > Shaun, would you mind looking at this?
>>
Hi,
2010/1/2 Salve J Nilsen
> A few comments,
>
Thanks.
> Leo Lapworth said:
>
>> 2010/1/2 James E Keenan
>>
>> 3) Phalanx
>>
>> Though in one sense it pains me to say it, Phalanx does not need to be a
>>> major tab. It can be demoted to a link somewhere.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have put it
I missed this - apologies.
Now uploaded.
Cheers
Leo
2010/1/2 David Golden
> For the record, I'll second Barbie's suggestion.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Barbie wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:10:48PM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Le
# from Leo Lapworth
# on Saturday 02 January 2010 08:35:
>I've renamed Old to Archive, but you've not actually told me what
> would be best for the other stuff.
"Archive" still implies "Old". Why not take the tab out of the
navigation bar entirely? Or, at least add one more level and make the
How about "inactive" rather than archive or old.
--
Shaun Fryer
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Leo Lapworth
> # on Saturday 02 January 2010 08:35:
>
> >I've renamed Old to Archive, but you've not actually told me what
> > would be best for the other stuff.
>
> "Arc
I've renamed to 'inactive' for now.
I like Eric's idea about history if someone wants to create that.
Cheers
Leo
2010/1/2 Shaun Fryer
> How about "inactive" rather than archive or old.
> --
> Shaun Fryer
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> > # from Leo Lapworth
> >
--- On Sat, 2/1/10, Leo Lapworth wrote:
> From: Leo Lapworth
> I've renamed to 'inactive' for now.
>
> I like Eric's idea about history if someone wants to create
> that.
I'll second that. From a pure marketing perspective, "archive", "inactive" and
"old" all imply "dead". "History" implies
# from Leo Lapworth
# on Saturday 02 January 2010 10:57:
>I've renamed to 'inactive' for now.
>
>I like Eric's idea about history if someone wants to create that.
>
>>>add one more level and make
>> > the tab be "History", then history.html is a page which says "> > href="phalanx">Phalanx 100 star
Hi all,
Am I alone here in thinking that we should be using the Onion trademark
rather than O'Reilly's trademark camel on the perl.org sites?
Thanks,
Eric
--
"But as to modern architecture, let us drop it and let us take
modernistic out and shoot it at sunrise."
--F.L. Wright
--
On Saturday 02 January 2010 at 18:59, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> Am I alone here in thinking that we should be using the Onion trademark
> rather than O'Reilly's trademark camel on the perl.org sites?
I agree completely. Using someone else's trademark is asking for trouble.
(If promissory estoppel
13 matches
Mail list logo
