I did a brief overlook at the rockbox site, but i did not find anything so i
thougt i should ask on the mailing list, the dumb thing is that i sent one to
the dev list instead.
I hope i've not spammed the mail list down by doing this. i appolegize for the
trouble this may have caused
An emberas
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Free
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 12:58 AM
To: Rockbox development
Subject: [Spam][100.0%] Re: Irc Channel
hello.. i dont know why you would ask me this i dont now about this but try
thishttp://www.rockbox.org/irc/cgiirc/irc.cgi
On
hello.. i dont know why you would ask me this i dont now about this
but try thishttp://www.rockbox.org/irc/cgiirc/irc.cgi
On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Brenden wrote:
Hi :)
I was wondering if there is an java-based irc-client i can use in
order to acess the #Rockbox channel.
Any s
Hi :)
I was wondering if there is an java-based irc-client i can use in order to
acess the #Rockbox channel.
Any suggestions? i would gladly appreciate some help.Daniel G BrendenRockbox
user for 8 months since jan 2007
_
Sjekk ut
way
Rockbox-devs share information, communicate with users and newbies. I
would very much like the irc-channel to stay this way. I believe that
noise and off-topic conversations will appear in every channel
regardless how they are organised. And it's nice to be met by friendly
developers and users
On 9/20/07, Austin Appel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is it generally thought that I should be stricter then?
Yeah. You should change your nick to scorche-meaniepants
>well, it could of course be used only if you're using the web client
>and have not registered to freenode -- or is something like this too
>hard to implement?
>
>Otoh, I'm not sure if this is really necessary if we enforce the rules
>more strictly.
It could be implemented using a bot and a voicin
> The only way to ensure the rules are read is to introduce an IRC
> CAPTCHA. This would require the user to have read the rules, and then
> respond to an automated question posed by a bot to them when they
> first enter the channel. Only when they respond with the correct
> answer (presumably some
> The rules are already pretty tight and are *supposed* to be read before
> speaking, but do you have any suggestions for changing them?
> http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/IrcGuidelines
The only way to ensure the rules are read is to introduce an IRC
CAPTCHA. This would require the user to have read th
>Maybe the rules need a little tightening first? Could we have the same
>rules for support on both IRC and the forums? Enough to say that you
>should RTFM before asking a question.
The rules are already pretty tight and are *supposed* to be read before
speaking, but do you have any suggestions fo
I'm also strongly in favour of keeping a single channel - I'm not that
annoyed by off-topic chat (I can easily ignore it), and very much like
the fact that the Rockbox community is one where there is no strong
distinction between devs and users - every user is encouraged to help
themselves and cont
> I would think we have a decent amount of ops to cover all times already.
If
> you wish for me (and other ops) to be stricter, just say so. I already
feel
> that I am sometimes quite too soft on people (such as DWGR who is now
> banned), but I prefer that to being a "jerk". Like I said though...
> How do you measure "infrequently" ?
I don't - without logs it's not easy to. All I know is that on the
occasions I've been in there (not many, granted), I've only seen tumbleweed.
--
pondlife
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Splitting "users" from "devs" (even the distinction is wierd) will just
risk that either users sit in a channel where not enough devs are so
they won't get the help they seek, or they come to the dev channel to
ask the questions since there's where the devs are etc.
And
ore channel ops around and kick them for not following the
protocols - i.e. a more strict police force.
personnally, i'm not a developper, just an user. I've subscribed to this
list, because i'm interested in building voice files and translating and
I wanted to learn more. Even toug
back on topic, I'm going to abstain. I don't mind which road we go
down. Like Austin, I don't find having another IRC channel open very
difficult to manage at all - but equally I don't mind just ignoring
the numbskulls in #rockbox either.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Austin Appel wrote:
It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in #rockbox lately. To
put it short, do people think the time has come where we need to move to the
split model?
In my view we're far from a situation where that is needed, and thus I am
against it
Dominik Riebeling wrote:
>While I'm in favor of cutting down the noise in #rockbox let me
>propose a slightly different approach: why not just keep #rockbox for
>development and extended support and direct all new users to
>#rockbox-community and provice "basic" support there? I.e. just make
>cgi::
I would also *strongly* prefer a single channel.
I have not found the "user helping" aspect annoying, and it's sometimes
useful to stimulate development ideas. If people are annoying, then a
quick RTFM response is perfectly acceptable; if they continue to annoy, why
not have a few more channel o
> It seems that we have had a big surge in “annoyances”
> in #rockbox lately. To put it short, do people think
> the time has come where we need to move to the split model?
> #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev (for development),
> #rockbox-community (for offtopic and social). All channels
> cur
On 9/20/07, Austin Appel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To put it short, do people think the time has come where we need to move to
> the split model? #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev (for development),
> #rockbox-community (for offtopic and social)
While I'm in favor of cutting down the noise
On 20.09.2007, Austin Appel wrote:
> It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in
> #rockbox lately. To put it short, do people think the time has
> come where we need to move to the split model? #rockbox (for
> support), #rockbox-dev (for development), #rockbox-community
I never expe
On 20/09/2007, Paul Louden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -dev will have the addition of no support questions unless they relate to
> > > the act of compiling/adding code/developing in general
> > >
> > no support questions at all in -dev... especially not asking for help
> > compiling and fixing
> > -dev will have the addition of no support questions unless they relate to
> > the act of compiling/adding code/developing in general
> >
> no support questions at all in -dev... especially not asking for help
> compiling and fixing patches.
I think -dev would need to be semi-flexible. For examp
On 20/09/2007, Austin Appel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -dev will have the addition of no support questions unless they relate to
> the act of compiling/adding code/developing in general
>
no support questions at all in -dev... especially not asking for help
compiling and fixing patches.
> The fe
>another point to remember... the webclient blocks all channels other
>than #rockbox, so that would need fixing
Indeed. That is a simple fix in the cgiirc.config file though.
In this model, I would imagine we should log both #rockbox and #rockbox-dev
and place both on the /irc portion of the site. I don't know what changes
would need to be made to logbot, but I can forsee the Swedes figuring
something out ;).
All guidelines will stand for all channels with a few excep
On 20/09/2007, Jonas Häggqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Appel wrote:
> > It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in #rockbox
> > lately. To put it short, do people think the time has come where we
> > need to move to the split model? #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev
>
Austin Appel wrote:
> It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in #rockbox
> lately. To put it short, do people think the time has come where we
> need to move to the split model? #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev
> (for development), #rockbox-community (for offtopic and social).
On 20/09/2007, Austin Appel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in #rockbox lately.
> To put it short, do people think the time has come where we need to move to
> the split model? #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev (for development),
> #rockb
And also provides for keeping the logs more full of development chat,
and less full of repetitions of the "read the manual" directive.
>
It seems that we have had a big surge in "annoyances" in #rockbox lately.
To put it short, do people think the time has come where we need to move to
the split model? #rockbox (for support), #rockbox-dev (for development),
#rockbox-community (for offtopic and social). All channels currently exist
32 matches
Mail list logo
