next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Michael! On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Michael Smith wrote: > I've made some changes tonight, <snip> Many thanks! I'll look it over closely and let you know if I see any problems. In the event that you might feel inclined to make another couple of changes to the IPDB which has been under discussion for a long while I'll drop these fleas in your ear. ;-> In the IPDB on the IPdb Status Update page within the IPDB there is a scroll-down menu of text options (for the most part these have no operation significance: they are simply text comments that are added to the page) called: Select status to update. The current options are: no change trained withdrawn inactive active static moving moved removed These options don't really mesh with the way that we manage our IPs. 'Static' IPs, for instance, have long years ago vanished from the system. 'Active' and 'Inactive' are categories that we've never employed in managing IPs from within the IPDB. 'Moved' is a good category but the transitive (and transitory) 'Moving' isn't of much use. The consequence of this is that these categories have been used (or not) in a haphazard and inconsistent way. I recommend the following set of options which more closely reflect the kind of information we need to note: no change trained withdrawn closed moved Any other suggestions? Cheers! Chris P.S. I'll send the second suggestion as a separate EMail. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects