From jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Thu Oct 10 09:57:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 16:57:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6471 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 16:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 16:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 16:57:37 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17zggn-00058n-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:01:33 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zgc4-00057j-00; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:56:40 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simba.math.ucla.edu ([128.97.4.125]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zgbx-00057W-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:56:33 -0700 Received: from localhost (jimc@localhost) by simba.math.ucla.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g9AGqIm01537 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:52:18 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: simba.math.ucla.edu: jimc owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Final Translation Wiki Idea: PLEASE READ. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021009205420.02e4bd80@pop.east.cox.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2114 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jimc@math.ucla.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jim Carter Reply-To: jimc@math.ucla.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810565 On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nora LeChevalier wrote: > I wish to suggest relying on the goodwill of all involved instead of only > automatic locking. If, as a custom, one who wishes to log out a piece of > work would put a (dated/timed?) comment to that effect at the top, to be > removed when the final posting is done, others who are willing to abide by > the convention will not make changes despite the page not being > locked. The duration of the lock may then become a non-issue. By coincidence, just yesterday I sent around a message in my work group chiding people for forgetting to remove equivalent expiration-dated notices. I wonder if the lock time could be configurable at the time of checkout, according to the particular person's style of work -- which apparently varies widely. Can locks be renewed, if the modifications go more slowly than expected? Good fences make good neighbors. Automated locking on the server can cheaply give a lot of help in coordination. Locking (one lock per file) is standard practice in software development. James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)