Newsgroups List Updated Posted on April 9, 2005 by gerv The newsgroups list has now had two rounds of feedback and I think we are getting close. Any more comments?
a couple of suggestions:
1. XPFE is mostly depricated, I think, except for the Mozilla Suite and the Seamonkey project. The new apps are Toolkit-based. Should we replace xpfe with toolit or add a toolkit group?
2. Why are we changing “Calendar” to “sunbird”?
3. Can we have a XULRunner group and a minimo group in the dev.apps category?
Also, I think editor belongs under technologies rather than apps since we don’t have a an editor app outside of the other apps already listed (seamonkey, thunderbird, etc.) Perhaps we’ll want a apps.composer group if nvu is coming into the mozilla tree soon.
and another :-)
Maybe .documentation can be folded into .devmo or the other way around. As I understand it, devmo will be our primary developer documentation resource akin to msdn. Or, is the devmo group simply about the devmo project (website, tools, etc.) and not about its actual contents? I could see devmo having groups below it for specific categories of documentation.
non-devmo docs probably beling in the app groups they apply to (for application help content, etc.), the specific dev groups they’re focused on if they don’t belong in our primary dev doc repository (like qa docs, policy docs, product docs, etc.) or the userhelp groups if they’re intended as product end support user docs.
mozilla.dev.apps.sunbird should be mozilla.dev.apps.calendar+sunbird
Most of the code between the Calendar extension and Sunbird is shared, so most of the problems are the same and should be discussed in the same group.
Alternatively you could create mozilla.dev.apps.calendar.extension and mozilla.dev.apps.calendar.sunbird. Then we could add mozilla.dev.apps.calendar.lightning when this project becomes available.
Maybe the platform newsgroup about mac could be a more generic “macos” rather than “macosx”.
I agree with the idea of splitting calendar extension and Sunbird newsgroups to give some room for lightning when it will be available :-)
Are users really going to distinguish between these two? Would it really matter if one thread were (more) about the “old suite” and other (more) about the “new suite”? The two suites seem similar enough to be on one newsgroup, at least as far as the user perspective is concerned.
It would be nice to have a:
mozilla.userhelp.editor (for composer & NVU)
If the calendar/sunbird/lightning people want to get together and decide how they want things, they should let me know. But we’re not having any ugly newsgroup names with + signs in. Lightning hasn’t even made a release yet; I’m not sure it’s at the stage of requiring an apps or userhelp group.
Riccardo: no-one develops for Mac OS 9 any more, do they? :-) OK, I’ll go for .mac.
Peter: when NVu is a mozilla.org project, it will acquire newsgroups. Composer is part of the suite, and should be supported in .mozilla-suite or .seamonkey. I suggest we need both of these because different people may be doing the support.
Tweaked version uploaded.
I don’t understand the purpose of mozilla.userhelp.accessibility. What is it’s purpose?
in mozilla.dev.platforms, you should either add ‘linux’, append its name to the unix group or remove unix.
You offer 3 main distributions on mozilla.org .. ‘windows’, ‘mac os x’ and ‘linux i686’; it would be logical to have linux platform discussions (i.e. gtk, gnome/kde integration, etc. etc.) in its own group rather than the m.d.p.other.
I think this is a great idea. I tried to subscribe to the list that currently exist and it has horrible spam on it from what I had seen. That was the n.dev newsgroup. Once these go into place that’ll be excellent. Thank You
I knew that you was gonna reply that nobody is using MacOS 9 (or less) anymore, but if one day Apple will release MacOS XI (and XII, and so on) the newsgroup name will be always good :-)
mozilla.userhelp.accessibility is a user support group for those using the accessibility features of our products, according to aaronl, who requested it. He felt “mozilla.dev.accessibility” scared off users. I wasn’t quite sure how to handle the situation – that was my first attempt.
bsmedberg has suggested that the big three “platform” groups be mostly removed, as most questions in them are off-topic and would be better asked elsewhere. So I’ve done that. If you object, say so :-)
I’ve also removed .toolkit and .architecture – we have .xul and .platform for these areas.
We need a couple of additional tech newsgroups…
I still don’t see the need for 4 newsgroups caring about the suite, esp. as the Mozilla-branded suite is supposed to be a short-lived project (dead in a ear or less). Esp. for users, the difference is hard to see, I’d think.
Nit: I don’t think that entry in the “old” column is right… n.p.m.seamonkey doesn’t have FF discussion anyways, it basically only has what mozilla.dev.direction is planned for (roadmap discussions, tree schedules, meeting minutes)…
KaiRo: The Foundation-backed Suite is going to be around for quite a while – at least a year, and maybe longer. There may not be much traffic in its dev newsgroup, but I think it’s good to keep the two projects separate so Suite stuff doesn’t get lost in all the discussion you are going to be having about Seamonkey :-)
As for users perceiving the difference, that’s all about the branding you guys do :-)