2:45 p.m.
Members Present
* Brian Pepple (bpepple)
* Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
* Jeremy Katz (jeremy)
* Jesse Keating (f13)
* Christian Iseli (c4chris)
* Christopher Aillon (caillon)
* Kevin Fenzi (nirik)
* Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)
* Bill Nottingham (notting)
* Josh Boyer (jwb)
* Tom Callaway (spot)
Members Absent
* David Woodhouse (dwmw2)
* Warren Togami (warren)
== Summary ==
== Bluetooth Feature Proposal ==
* Bastien Nocera (hadess) attended the meeting to appeal the
recent FESCo decision to remove Bluetooth from the new features
list for F8. After being apprised of the the changes for
Bluetooth support, FESCo agreed to reverse it's prior decision.
For more information about the Bluetooth improvements please
refer to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth
== Bodhi Enhancements ==
* Luke Macken (lmacken) discussed some enhancements to Bodhi that
should be coming shortly:
* A nag mail will be sent to maintainers if a package
update is left in testing for certain length of time.
* Auto pushing of packages after receiving 3 karma votes.
== Buildroot Changes ==
* f13 is going to implement the changes to the buildroot that were
discussed in the 2007-08-30 FESCo meeting.
== Compat Policy ==
* jeremy is still working on this, and will try to have something
for next week.
== Closing Maintainers List ==
* After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
notice out announcing this.
== Features Update ==
* FESCo discussed the status of the NetworkManger, xulrunner, and
generic-logos features. For more details, please refer to the
IRC log.
IRC log can be found at:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/FESCo-2007-09-06.html
Thanks,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
5:56 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
== Closing Maintainers List ==
* After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
notice out announcing this.
Given this decision, I would like to propose
to also close down
* fedora-test-list@:
Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
* fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages are
part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
specialized lists for these topics.
Ralf
6:21 p.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:56:23 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> == Closing Maintainers List ==
> * After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
> fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
> will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
> notice out announcing this.
Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
* fedora-test-list@:
Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
* fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages are
part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
specialized lists for these topics.
We can discuss this at next week's FESCo meeting if you would like.
josh
6:30 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:21 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:56:23 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>
> > == Closing Maintainers List ==
> > * After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
> > fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
> > will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
> > notice out announcing this.
> Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
> * fedora-test-list@:
> Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
> development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
>
> * fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages are
> part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
> specialized lists for these topics.
We can discuss this at next week's FESCo meeting if you would like.
Yes, please
do so - Put it on your schedule.
This meant to be a serious proposal and is not a knee-jerk reaction[1].
You've decided to kill maintainers@, now you should be consequent and
kill these lists, too.
Ralf
[1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will regret.
It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
"application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
6:50 p.m.
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
[1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will
regret.
It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
"application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
Well, the biggest problem with -maintainers was that it was only postable
through on subscription (which also kept people from using tools like the GMane
NNTP and web interfaces) and that subscription was essentially limited to
existing maintainers (which kept not only the random users out, but even people
with legitimate content to post).
Kevin Kofler
7:06 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 23:50 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> [1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will regret.
> It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
> "application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
> maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
Well, the biggest problem with -maintainers was that it was only postable
through on subscription (which also kept people from using tools like the GMane
NNTP and web interfaces) and that subscription was essentially limited to
existing maintainers (which kept not only the random users out, but even people
with legitimate content to post).
Yes, it had been a closed list and maintainers
did get automatically
subscribed to it - The FESCO of the time this was decided, this approach
wise - I never did - But THEM decided otherwise.
Now, at least I will very likely miss essential postings, because they
get swapped away in all the "*-ng, x11.R8, kernel-*, ubuntu has "a
bigger one" babbling ... THEM have decided.
Fortunately, THEM are a democratically elected - Now, I have a list of
people have made top rankings on my list of folks I will NOT vote in
next FESCO elections.
Ralf
7:32 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 02:06 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 23:50 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> > [1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will regret.
> > It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
> > "application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
> > maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
>
> Well, the biggest problem with -maintainers was that it was only postable
> through on subscription (which also kept people from using tools like the GMane
> NNTP and web interfaces) and that subscription was essentially limited to
> existing maintainers (which kept not only the random users out, but even people
> with legitimate content to post).
Yes, it had been a closed list and maintainers did get automatically
s/did/did
not/
subscribed to it - The FESCO of the time this was decided, this
approach
s/, this approach/, thought this approach to be/
wise - I never did - But THEM decided otherwise.
Sorry,
Ralf
9:22 p.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:06:19 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Now, at least I will very likely miss essential postings, because
they
get swapped away in all the "*-ng, x11.R8, kernel-*, ubuntu has "a
bigger one" babbling ... THEM have decided.
*yawn* fedora-devel-announce. Importing postings go there.
Everything else is just follow up/discussion that you can read if you
wish or ignore if you wish. Just do whatever you need to do so that
fedora-devel-announce mails get your attention.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
1:22 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 22:22 -0400, <a FESCO member I will not vote for
next time> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:06:19 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> Now, at least I will very likely miss essential postings, because they
> get swapped away in all the "*-ng, x11.R8, kernel-*, ubuntu has "a
> bigger one" babbling ... THEM have decided.
*yawn* fedora-devel-announce. Importing postings go there.
No. Important
"proclamations" go there - Important "discussions" will
get lost in the flood, i.e. not take place.
Ralf
4:31 a.m.
On Fr September 7 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No. Important "proclamations" go there - Important
"discussions" will
get lost in the flood, i.e. not take place.
This risk was there with -maintainers, too, because not many people agree on
which topics are better for which list. When its break is over, the Fedora
Weekly Newsletter may also help you to identify interesting discussions:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN
Regards,
Till
5:16 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:31 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fr September 7 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> No. Important "proclamations" go there - Important "discussions"
will
> get lost in the flood, i.e. not take place.
This risk was there with -maintainers, too, because not many people agree on
which topics are better for which list. When its break is over, the Fedora
Weekly Newsletter may also help you to identify interesting discussions:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN
lists are "push" media, wiki's (and
web-pages in general) normally are
being used as "pull-media", therefore can not replace lists.
Ralf
5:28 a.m.
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
lists are "push" media, wiki's (and web-pages in
general) normally are
being used as "pull-media", therefore can not replace lists.
May I suggest list archives? That way you can "pull" and pick what you read and
when (no flooded mailbox), and with the GMane web interface you can "push" if
you need to (which is how this message is being sent). It's the way I keep up
to date with high-volume mailing lists.
Kevin Kofler
5:38 a.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:16:32 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:31 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fr September 7 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > No. Important "proclamations" go there - Important
"discussions" will
> > get lost in the flood, i.e. not take place.
>
> This risk was there with -maintainers, too, because not many people agree on
> which topics are better for which list. When its break is over, the Fedora
> Weekly Newsletter may also help you to identify interesting discussions:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN
lists are "push" media, wiki's (and web-pages in general) normally are
being used as "pull-media", therefore can not replace lists.
FWN is also delivered via mail:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2007-August/msg00006...
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list
4:59 a.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:06:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 23:50 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> > [1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will regret.
> > It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
> > "application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
> > maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
>
> Well, the biggest problem with -maintainers was that it was only postable
> through on subscription (which also kept people from using tools like the GMane
> NNTP and web interfaces) and that subscription was essentially limited to
> existing maintainers (which kept not only the random users out, but even people
> with legitimate content to post).
Yes, it had been a closed list and maintainers did get automatically
subscribed to it - The FESCO of the time this was decided, this approach
wise - I never did - But THEM decided otherwise.
The idea and rationale behind fedora-maintainers was good and wise.
But it was based on the assumption of starting with low traffic and
messages relevant to package maintainers. Instead, fedora-maintainers
list has been "abused" as some sort of new fedora-devel list with lots
of lengthy general discussions not specifically relevant to package
maintainers. IMO the justification for keeping that content on a
separate list was gone.
Now, at least I will very likely miss essential postings, because
they
get swapped away in all the "*-ng, x11.R8, kernel-*, ubuntu has "a
bigger one" babbling ... THEM have decided.
They should learn to copy essential posts to the moderated announce
lists or directly to the contributors via private mail.
Mandatory subscription of a list with lengthy threads and
controversies (e.g. the completely inappropriate codenames discussion)
simply does not work, as the package maintainers feel the need to
escape from such madness. But to make them not miss announcements
and important posts, somebody needs to decide on what's "essential"
and what is not.
11:52 a.m.
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Yes, it had been a closed list and maintainers did get automatically
subscribed to it - The FESCO of the time this was decided, this approach
wise - I never did - But THEM decided otherwise.
So essentially you're agreeing that the way -maintainers was handled/set
up by the old FESCo was wrong. Which is basically what the current
FESCo decided. We can go on for days discussing various ways to fix it,
but we decided that since it was broken, removing the broken bit was the
best course of action for now since it provided a disservice to many
people as evidenced by the complaints on the various lists about it by
the very people who IMO we were trying to target. If you have a better
solution for lists to actually serve the needs of the community, please
propose it to FESCo.
12:22 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 12:52 -0400, <another person I will not vote for
in FESCO elections> wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Yes, it had been a closed list and maintainers did get automatically
> subscribed to it - The FESCO of the time this was decided, this approach
> wise - I never did - But THEM decided otherwise.
So essentially you're agreeing that the way -maintainers was handled/set
up by the old FESCo was wrong.
Correct.
Which is basically what the current
FESCo decided. We can go on for days discussing various ways to fix it,
but we decided that since it was broken, removing the broken bit was the
best course of action for now since it provided a disservice to many
people as evidenced by the complaints on the various lists about it by
the very people who IMO we were trying to target.
IMO, the current FESCO's
decision to kill "maintainers@" is as wrong as
their predecessor's decision to not make subscription to "maintainers@"
mandatory to all "package maintainers".
If you have a better
solution for lists to actually serve the needs of the community, please
propose it to FESCo.
I would keep maintainers, but make subscription mandatory to
all
maintainers and "kill all *announce lists".
Alternative would be to kill all "devel/testing lists" in favor of one
single list all maintainers and devs can not avoid being subscribed too.
Ralf
6:55 p.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:30:58 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:21 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:56:23 +0200
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> >
> > > == Closing Maintainers List ==
> > > * After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
> > > fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
> > > will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
> > > notice out announcing this.
> > Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
> > * fedora-test-list@:
> > Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
> > development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
> >
> > * fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages are
> > part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
> > specialized lists for these topics.
>
> We can discuss this at next week's FESCo meeting if you would like.
Yes, please do so - Put it on your schedule.
This meant to be a serious proposal and is not a knee-jerk reaction[1].
You've decided to kill maintainers@, now you should be consequent and
kill these lists, too.
I'll be sure it's discussed.
[1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will
regret.
It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
"application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
I think that remains to be seen. Personally, I think -maintainers and
-devel had overlapping purposes and there was not a way to enforce the
distinction. -devel-announce should cover the "low traffic" part that
-maintainers was intended for. It will handle the "these things have
changed" type of announcements. As for actual discussions, I really do
feel those belong on -devel.
josh
7:17 p.m.
New subject: Maintainers list discussion (Re: FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-09-06)
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 01:30 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:21 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:56:23 +0200
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> > Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
> > * fedora-test-list@:
> > Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
> > development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
> >
> > * fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages are
> > part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
> > specialized lists for these topics.
>
> We can discuss this at next week's FESCo meeting if you would like.
Yes, please do so - Put it on your schedule.
This meant to be a serious proposal and is not a knee-jerk reaction[1].
You've decided to kill maintainers@, now you should be consequent and
kill these lists, too.
I've added these to next weeks schedule.
[1] IMO, this FESCO decision is a fault and mistake, we all will
regret.
It molests maintainers with long term development babbling and molests
"application developers" with "bureaucracy of Fedora package
maintenance" - It's not helpful to both parties.
Yeah, I would have preferred to keep the maintainer's list as well, but
sadly I was in the minority. :(
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
12:02 a.m.
On 07.09.2007 00:56, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> == Closing Maintainers List ==
> * After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
> fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
> will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
> notice out announcing this.
Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
* fedora-test-list@:
Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
+1
* fedora-packaging@: Packaging and discussing details of packages
are
part of a distribution's development. It doesn't make sense to keep
specialized lists for these topics.
+1 -- it's IMHO even hindering work and informations flow if something
important to all gets discussed on a dedicated list.
But warning, last time I proposed closing fedora-packaging I got ninjas
send after me ;-)
CU
knurd
12:19 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
+1 -- it's IMHO even hindering work and informations flow if
something
important to all gets discussed on a dedicated list.
Weren't you suggesting closing fedora-qa and fedora-test-list and
creating a new fedora-devel-users mailing list earlier? Is that still
the proposal and having all the discussions in this list instead?
If fedora-devel and fedora-test lists are being merged, the update
notifications for test updates should probably be send to
fedora-package-announce list under a new mailman topic and replies
redirected to this list or the newly created fedora-devel-users list.
Rahul
12:46 a.m.
On 07.09.2007 07:19, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> +1 -- it's IMHO even hindering work and informations flow if something
> important to all gets discussed on a dedicated list.
Weren't you suggesting closing fedora-qa and fedora-test-list and
creating a new fedora-devel-users mailing list earlier?
Yes.
Is that still the proposal
If someone drives it I'm all for it.
Albeit I think it won't work if we just create that list, as people will
continue to post on fedora-devel-list. So if we want to disjoin
"devel-users" and "developers" (which IMHO is a good differentiation
and
worth different lists) more work would be needed (e.g. create two new
lists and point people currently on
fedora{-qa,-devel,-test,-maintainers} in the right direction.
and having all the discussions in this list instead?
During the last discussions I got the impression the Board / those on
FAB feared to touch fedora-devel-list. But I think we need to touch it,
as users sometimes post to this list and feed unheard or ignored.
Developers on the other hand seem to be annoyed by users that post their
problems and feature requests here, but are not doing anything else for
Fedora.
If fedora-devel and fedora-test lists are being merged, the update
notifications for test updates should probably be send to
fedora-package-announce list under a new mailman topic and replies
redirected to this list or the newly created fedora-devel-users list.
+1
CU
knurd
5:48 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 10:49 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If fedora-devel and fedora-test lists are being merged, the update
notifications for test updates should probably be send to
fedora-package-announce list under a new mailman topic and replies
redirected to this list or the newly created fedora-devel-users list.
I think that users are going to confuse these lists no matter what,
unless either everyone is all on one list, or you have two totally
distinct lists, that people can surely distinguish between the two.
Such as fedora-devel-users@ (beta/rawhide users, maintainers, etc.) and
fedora-project-discuss@ (How fedora as a whole - docs, web, product -
are discussed to guide it into the promise land). And the lists
descriptions need be worded as dummied down as possible so they are
totally known they are not the same.
The names obviously could be something else if needed, but you get the
idea. Just trying to help one way or the other :)
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
6:03 a.m.
On 07.09.2007 12:48, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 10:49 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If fedora-devel and fedora-test lists are being merged, the update
> notifications for test updates should probably be send to
> fedora-package-announce list under a new mailman topic and replies
> redirected to this list or the newly created fedora-devel-users list.
I think that users are going to confuse these lists no matter what,
unless either everyone is all on one list, or you have two totally
distinct lists, that people can surely distinguish between the two.
+1
Such as fedora-devel-users@ (beta/rawhide users, maintainers, etc.)
and
fedora-project-discuss@ (How fedora as a whole - docs, web, product -
are discussed to guide it into the promise land).
I suggested something like fedora-project-discuss in the past, but it
fedora-advisory-board seems to mostly serve the purpose of a
list-for-all-fedora-projects currently afaics.
But it's sees FAB is more used by contributors of Fedora projects and
not by normal users. If we want to have a list for those as well then a
fedora-project-discuss in addition might make sense.
And the lists
descriptions need be worded as dummied down as possible so they are
totally known they are not the same.
+1
[...]
CU
knurd
4:44 a.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:56:23 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:45 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> == Closing Maintainers List ==
> * After a long discussion, it was decided to close the
> fedora-maintainers-list. In the future maintainer discussions
> will be conducted on the fedora-devel-list. bpepple will send a
> notice out announcing this.
Given this decision, I would like to propose to also close down
* fedora-test-list@:
Rationale: There can't be a clear separation between testing and
development. testing is part of development and maintaining packages.
+1
I wholeheartedly agree here. Find somebody who can explain in clear
words which list to use when and for what and get that into the heads
of the subscribers. Especially during the periods when there are
official Test releases of the distribution, there is no clear
separation between fedora-test* and fedora-devel*, and between
development in rawhide and the test releases. But there are either
cross-posts or exclusive posts to either list, which require everybody
with interest to subscribe to both lists in order to stay informed.
And then the Test Update announcements, which are much more relevant
to the users of the stable dists, are mixed in there, too.
4:44 a.m.
On 07.09.2007 11:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree here. Find somebody who can explain in clear
words which list to use when
we tried that in the past already...
and for what and get that into the heads of the subscribers.
which IMHO is next-to-impossible at this point as lots of people got
used to ask questions like "is foo broken in rawhide" on this list way
to much already.
[...]
CU
knurd
6:33 a.m.
Brian Pepple wrote:
== Bluetooth Feature Proposal ==
* Bastien Nocera (hadess) attended the meeting to appeal the
recent FESCo decision to remove Bluetooth from the new features
list for F8. After being apprised of the the changes for
Bluetooth support, FESCo agreed to reverse it's prior decision.
For more information about the Bluetooth improvements please
refer to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth
If it will be possible, please, do not forget about command line
utilities for this.
Besides Bluetooth, there are (there was :) ) irda and serial ports for
the same purpose, hence when applicable, allow people to use those
"ancient" transports too.
~buc
6110
days inactive
6113
days old
27 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Brian Pepple -
Christopher Aillon -
Dmitry Butskoy -
Jesse Keating -
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Kofler -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike Chambers -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Till Maas