I'm not clear on what you are asking me for here. You want the [QUIZ] rule and no [SOLUTION] rule? Do I have that right?
I'm saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz in particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.) should have QUIZ in the subject.
That's a good point. You're right.
Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to the list revolve around quizzes.
If I do this though we now have two new rules: [QUIZ] and [QUIZ SOLUTION]. I don't want to get too draconian with Ruby Quiz procedure.
I'm not too worried about people bumping into solutions accidentally either, since the "no spoiler period" handles this quite well, in my opinion.
I'll add a suggestion to the quizzes for a [QUIZ] in the subject and we can see if that changes anything...
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 02:37:48PM +0900, James Britt wrote:
James Edward Gray II wrote:
>I'm not clear on what you are asking me for here. You want the [QUIZ]
>rule and no [SOLUTION] rule? Do I have that right?
I'm saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all
quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz in
particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.) should have
QUIZ in the subject.
Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then
make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a
proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to
the list revolve around quizzes.
We already have a few established tags which people DO use and nobody
seems to be averse towards. [ANN], [RAILS], and [QUIZ]. so it seems
like the only argument is over exactly how many there should be...not
whether we should have them at all. so i don't see why a suggestion to
add _2_ more should be mocked as the equivalent of saying we make a
specific tag for everything under the sun....we have 3 already. i
suggested we have a whopping 5! watch out--i'm crrrrrrazy!
i respect the logical arguments to stick with just the 3 and that's
fine but that's no reason to act like one or two more is completely
outlandish.
I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get used. People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a chord with others, they get picked up. Useless or confusing tags simply go away.
I've seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and finally reach a solution. So it has a history already.
Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...
···
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:52:37 -0000, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:39:32AM +0900, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
Justin Bishop <jubishop@gmail.com> writes:
> I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.
>
> I like the idea of extending this concept further. Is it already a
> "recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
> [ANN] in their subject line?
>
> How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as well? ;o)
... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC].
. . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.
Yeah, well, I didn't want to bring that up, but that's in a nutshell.
(So I guess we can refer people to past threads on picking names for third-party Ruby libraries, and why people should pause before claiming a fairly generic or common name for things. Or something.)
Robert Retzbach <rretzbach@googlemail.com> writes:
Just imagin a list where all ppl use a set of maybe 20 tags like
[REGEXP], [TOOLKIT], [HTTPD] and so on :>
That would be so nice, but never happening.
While we are at it, let me propose:
[ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
[SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
[WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
[LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].
True, that . . . it's sort of a "critical mass consensus" thing that
tends to lead to stuff like public wiki policy and Usenet traditions
like the one regarding Godwin's Law and the end of a discussion.
···
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:33:14AM +0900, James Britt wrote:
I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get
used. People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a
chord with others, they get picked up. Useless or confusing tags simply
go away.
I've seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general
problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and
finally reach a solution. So it has a history already.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:43:00PM +0900, Ross Bamford wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:52:37 -0000, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> > wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:39:32AM +0900, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>>Justin Bishop <jubishop@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of extending this concept further. Is it already a
>>> "recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
>>> [ANN] in their subject line?
>>>
>>> How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as
>>well? ;o)
>>
>>... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
>>other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
>>[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
>>[ON-TOPIC].
>
> . . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
>than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.
>
[^OT] ?
Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic
is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...
> I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.
>
> I like the idea of extending this concept further. Is it already a
> "recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
> [ANN] in their subject line?
>
> How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as well? ;o)
... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC].
. . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.
[^OT] ?
Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...
Robert Retzbach <rretzbach@googlemail.com> writes:
Just imagin a list where all ppl use a set of maybe 20 tags like
[REGEXP], [TOOLKIT], [HTTPD] and so on :>
That would be so nice, but never happening.
While we are at it, let me propose:
[ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
[SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
[WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
[LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].
I composed my list by running
grep proposes ~/.xchat2/xchatlogs/* | grep chris2
It looks like these didn't come up too often in latter times (or
didn't really annoy me).
Though maybe lately we haven't seen that too much.
Ryan
···
On 1/4/06, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
[WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
[LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].
Uh-oh. What do we do if we're talking about metaprogramming?
···
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:30:22AM +0900, Bill Kelly wrote:
From: "Joel VanderWerf" <vjoel@path.berkeley.edu>
>Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>>While we are at it, let me propose:
>>[ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
>>[SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>
>How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?
Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
[META][META] ?
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:30:22AM +0900, Bill Kelly wrote:
> From: "Joel VanderWerf" <vjoel@path.berkeley.edu>
> >Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> >>While we are at it, let me propose:
> >>[ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
> >>[SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
> >>
> >>Thank you.
> >>
> >
> >How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?
>
> Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
> [META][META] ?
Uh-oh. What do we do if we're talking about metaprogramming?
