Difference between revisions of "Talk:Efficient Hex"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (thanks to Strife for happy optimism on dividing the one article in two) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:I'm happy and optimistic with this solution. I'll take a closer review later but I don't foresee any show stoppers. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 12:40, 29 October 2007 (PDT) | :I'm happy and optimistic with this solution. I'll take a closer review later but I don't foresee any show stoppers. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 12:40, 29 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
::Great to hear, yes thank you. -- [[User:Ppaatt Lynagh|Ppaatt Lynagh]] 13:21, 29 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:21, 29 October 2007
Not Much Talk Here Yet
We have been slow to conclude that we should divide the brief & clear & conventional exemplars at the hex article from the clever & small & fast exemplars of the Efficient Hex article.
We have now proposed dividing the one article in two. If we next reach a consensus that that division is a step forward, then of course we should move all the talk of different unpersuasive ways to measure fast to here, away from the Talk:Hex.
-- Ppaatt Lynagh 07:32, 29 October 2007 (PDT)
- I'm happy and optimistic with this solution. I'll take a closer review later but I don't foresee any show stoppers. -- Strife Onizuka 12:40, 29 October 2007 (PDT)
- Great to hear, yes thank you. -- Ppaatt Lynagh 13:21, 29 October 2007 (PDT)