Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On 11 October 2013 10:21, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there some limitation somewhere that makes it only suitable for IRC? So this would be a replacement for Empathy? Given my recent experience of trying to get users to use GNOME3+Empathy (before giving up and using pidgin), that probably wouldn't be a bad thing... Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. Ross ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: So this would be a replacement for Empathy? Only for multi user chatrooms. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
I think Chat will replace Empathy. See https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Chat and https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-chat. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Florian Müllner fmuell...@gnome.org wrote: Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there some limitation somewhere that makes it only suitable for IRC? -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:25 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. So if I'm having a conversation in an IRC channel with someone, and we decide to take it *off* the channel to private messages, it suddenly ends up in a different app altogether? Or would the differentiation be on the *protocol* it uses? Which doesn't sound like a very user-friendly idea either. And many IM protocols actually support group chats or meetings too... And if there's an IRC channel with only two people in, what then? :) -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
So there's going to be Empathy, Chat and Polari? Each with a different use-case? Maybe taking the lead from Google on their Hangouts for Everything (including MMS and SMS) might be a better route? Happy to help tho - Nick On 11 Oct 2013 10:35, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:25 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. So if I'm having a conversation in an IRC channel with someone, and we decide to take it *off* the channel to private messages, it suddenly ends up in a different app altogether? Or would the differentiation be on the *protocol* it uses? Which doesn't sound like a very user-friendly idea either. And many IM protocols actually support group chats or meetings too... And if there's an IRC channel with only two people in, what then? :) -- dwmw2 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:39 +0100, Nick Glynn wrote: So there's going to be Empathy, Chat and Polari? Don't forget that some stuff appears in a notification pop-up instead, so that's a fourth option. :) And then there's a *separate* tool I have to fire up to check whether a given account is actually *connected* or not, since the standard Empathy/Shell UIs don't think that's important to show me. So that's five... -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many always on channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a thing). So if I'm having a conversation in an IRC channel with someone, and we decide to take it *off* the channel to private messages, it suddenly ends up in a different app altogether? ... No. Please check the mockups [1] - private messages are handled in Polari (in a similar fashion to other IRC clients, like XChat). There's nothing radically new here - IRC and IM clients frequently coexist without any problems. This feature is simply intended to provide a better IRC client for GNOME. Allan [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Potential/Polari#Tentative_Design ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
What's the new shiny feature for this over the more established players? I saw on the notes it mentioned about missed messages and multiple channels - will there be a gnome hosted service that proxies the messages so they're available on reconnect as that would be fncy :D On 11 Oct 2013 11:19, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote: David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many always on channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a thing). So if I'm having a conversation in an IRC channel with someone, and we decide to take it *off* the channel to private messages, it suddenly ends up in a different app altogether? ... No. Please check the mockups [1] - private messages are handled in Polari (in a similar fashion to other IRC clients, like XChat). There's nothing radically new here - IRC and IM clients frequently coexist without any problems. This feature is simply intended to provide a better IRC client for GNOME. Allan [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Potential/Polari#Tentative_Design ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On 11/10/13 10:25, Ross Burton wrote:
On 11 October 2013 10:21, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org
mailto:dw...@infradead.org wrote:
Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it
for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there
some limitation somewhere that makes it only suitable for IRC?
So this would be a replacement for Empathy?
Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or
eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM.
In the past, various people have talked about cutting the named
chatroom UI out of Empathy and replacing it with something based on the
xchat-gnome UI.
This seems broadly similar - it's new code rather than xchat-gnome, but
the principle of have a UI designed for a particular purpose seems
similar.
For completeness, I should point out that because IM protocols are
annoyingly varied, Telepathy has four types of Text channel, which are
sufficiently different at the protocol level that we distinguish between
them on D-Bus. I list them here in the hope that the developers of GNOME
Telepathy UIs can make an informed decision about their UIs' scope,
rather than getting a particular set of channels by mistake as a
result of implementation details :-)
- one-to-one messages[1]: PRIVMSG on IRC, IMs on XMPP, SMSs in
telepathy-ring, etc. Currently handled by Shell and Empathy,
could be handled by Chat in future
- nameless ad-hoc chatrooms[2]: what you get when you add a a contact
to a one-to-one conversation, in protocols that let you do that, like
MSNP and Skype). I don't think any current Telepathy CMs do this,
but telepathy-butterfly used to do this for MSNP, and I think the
proprietary Telepathy CM on the N900/N9 did this for Skype.
Is Chat going to be the handler for these? I would personally give
these the same UI as one-to-one channels, if I was implementing
a UI (I'm not).
- ad-hoc chatrooms with a meaningless name (a UUID or something)[3]:
this is what you get when you add a contact to a one-to-one
conversation on Google Talk. It should be presented in UIs in the
same way as a nameless ad-hoc chatroom, but is different at the
protocol level (loggers can use the name to tie together
conversations, for instance). Is Chat going to be the handler for
these? Again, I would personally group them together with one-to-one
channels.
- chatrooms with a human-meaningful name (e.g. #telepathy on IRC,
j...@conference.jabber.org on XMPP)[4]. If I understand correctly,
this is what Polari is meant for? I think these do make sense
to have a less message-oriented and more room-oriented UI
(a room/location/conference rather than chat metaphor).
If you want to match channels by protocol (e.g. an IRC-only UI), either
we'll have to introduce new handler matching API, or GNOME Shell will
have to learn to discriminate between multiple UIs that
telepathy-misison-control considers equally good. Either is completely
do-able, but we do need to understand the use-cases before we design.
Regards,
S
[1] Telepathy channel filter: {
...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = CONTACT
}
[2] Telepathy channel filter: {
...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = NONE
}
[3] Telepathy channel filter: {
...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = ROOM,
...Room2.RoomName =
}
[4] Telepathy channel filter: {
...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = ROOM
}
(and because Mission Control has closest match first
semantics, filter [3] will take precedence for nameless
rooms)
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:24 +0100, Nick Glynn wrote: What's the new shiny feature for this over the more established players? The UI's integrated with GNOME 3 (and not awful) and it's maintained. Which makes it (or rather, will make it) a better option than at least X-Chat, XChat-GNOME, and hexchat. The UI and features will also be such that we can provide good integration with oft-used channels and networks in our community (I'm guessing GIMPNet, Freenode and Mozilla's IRC at least). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:18 +0100, Allan Day wrote: The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many always on channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a thing). I'm not so sure they're really different. I have a passive presence on my corporate IM system, always indicating my availability (available/busy/away/etc.). And it's very likely to be 'always on' these days, since I can also receive voice calls from the PSTN when I'm connected to it. And there are obviously the small number of temporally specific conversations that you mention. But all that *also* describes my IRC usage. Yeah, it's always on, and it can indicate my availability, and I'll have a number of short-lived conversations. To me, there isn't a clear distinction between one and the other. There's a broad *spectrum* of communication, and even 'group chat' can end up including meetings, with audio conferencing, desktop sharing and all the other stuff that can bring. But then, so can 1:1 messaging. I worry about trying to draw clear lines between types of usage and design *different* clients for each. Because there's a lot that might then fall through the cracks. OK, so it isn't necessarily that easy to do one tool to solve all use cases either — but at least if we take that approach there is no need for the user to learn how we've drawn our arbitrary¹ distinctions between use cases and which tool to use for which. And we'll *have* to bear in mind the fact that there is a *spectrum* of usage which we have to encompass, rather than each separate tool focusing on only a tiny part of it. -- dwmw2 ¹ to the user. Probably. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
Quoting Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: So this would be a replacement for Empathy? Only for multi user chatrooms. Is this still clearly separable? What starts as a 1:1 conversation in most instances nowadays can just 'invite' another user to the conversation, and you're 'multiuser'. 1:n (with n = 1) is the nowadays relationship for messaging... Dominique ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many always on channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a thing). I'm not so sure they're really different. I have a passive presence on my corporate IM system, always indicating my availability (available/busy/away/etc.). And it's very likely to be 'always on' these days, since I can also receive voice calls from the PSTN when I'm connected to it. And there are obviously the small number of temporally specific conversations that you mention. But all that *also* describes my IRC usage. Yeah, it's always on, and it can indicate my availability, and I'll have a number of short-lived conversations. To me, there isn't a clear distinction between one and the other. IRC: * You tend to join channels, not conversations. * Individuals tend to be on a high number of channels simultaneously. * Channels often have a high number of people in them. * Your interest in a channel tends remain the same over time. * Most people tend to read and not write. * Participants are often strangers. IM * Conversation based rather than channel based. * You know the people you talk to. * The number of conversations you are involved in at any one time tends to be fairly low. * Conversations tend to be temporally specific. * The number of participants in a conversation tends to be low. * All the participants in a conversation usually speak. The distinction seems pretty clear to me. There's a broad *spectrum* of communication, and even 'group chat' can end up including meetings, with audio conferencing, desktop sharing and all the other stuff that can bring. But then, so can 1:1 messaging. ... Well sure, the world is a messy place. That goes for pretty much anything; but you still have to make a call and decide what it is that you want to build. Saying it's complicated, so we'll build all the complexity into a single tool is not a recipe for success. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
Quoting Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com: David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many always on channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a thing). I'm not so sure they're really different. I have a passive presence on my corporate IM system, always indicating my availability (available/busy/away/etc.). And it's very likely to be 'always on' these days, since I can also receive voice calls from the PSTN when I'm connected to it. And there are obviously the small number of temporally specific conversations that you mention. But all that *also* describes my IRC usage. Yeah, it's always on, and it can indicate my availability, and I'll have a number of short-lived conversations. To me, there isn't a clear distinction between one and the other. IRC: * You tend to join channels, not conversations. * Individuals tend to be on a high number of channels simultaneously. * Channels often have a high number of people in them. * Your interest in a channel tends remain the same over time. * Most people tend to read and not write. * Participants are often strangers. IM * Conversation based rather than channel based. * You know the people you talk to. * The number of conversations you are involved in at any one time tends to be fairly low. * Conversations tend to be temporally specific. * The number of participants in a conversation tends to be low. * All the participants in a conversation usually speak. The distinction seems pretty clear to me. The way you list them, yes, I agree.. to most of the points, except the 'number of participants' which is not 'clear'. There are no low-limits in IRC.. 'IM' probably has some upper limit.. but to make it clear' you'd need a hard number.. I would probably remove this statement from the comparison. Dominique ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident that it can be in time for 3.12, thus this feature proposal. The name is not consistent with other GNOME 3 applications. We now have Web, Files, Photos, Music, etc. Will the Polari name be kept? Any concious decision between maintainers and designers? Just wondering why it is different, we had Bijiben, but it now also calls itself Notes. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:08:11PM +0100, Allan Day wrote: Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident that it can be in time for 3.12, thus this feature proposal. The name is not consistent with other GNOME 3 applications. We now have Web, Files, Photos, Music, etc. Will the Polari name be kept? Any concious decision between maintainers and designers? Just wondering why it is different, we had Bijiben, but it now also calls itself Notes. The core applications are unbranded and have generic names. The idea is that these apps should be installed by default. The generic name is appropriate in this case because (a) the app is essentially part of the OS and (b) it tells new users what all the default apps do. I don't think the suggestion is that Polari will be a core app, or that distros should install it by default - hence it has a brand of its own. It is still a GNOME app though, in the sense that it is created by GNOME and follows the GNOME 3 design patterns. Cool, thanks for clarifying. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: ... What, *exactly*, does the user's decision-making process look like, when she wants to communicate and has to choose which tool to use for it? ... The same as it does now for XChat or some other IRC client? Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:45 +0100, Allan Day wrote: The same as it does now for XChat or some other IRC client? Fair enough. If it's just another IRC client and isn't attempting to be more, and isn't a core app, that makes sense. I was confused because people seemed to be suggesting that it would be more. And partly, perhaps, because I really *want* to believe that someone's working on replacing Empathy :) -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On 11/10/13 08:01 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: It is *broadly* true that IRC tends to match the description you give for it above, I grant you. Although not 100% so, and for other protocols like XMPP it's even less clear that they can fit cleanly into one camp or the other. For example some people use XMPP purely in the 'IM' mode that you describe, and others use it purely in the 'IRC' mode (actually in xchat via Bitlbee, in my case). For what it is worth, at my previous job we *internally* used XMPP like we'd use IRC. In addition to the person to person IM use. Hub ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have something like a roadmap for what you hope to have in 3.12 ? I have just added one at https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Polari/Roadmap; there is only one item that isn't either small or doesn't have some initial code, so it should be quite doable in the 3.12 timeframe. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com wrote: I don't mean to be a buzz kill here but IRC clients seem to be dime a dozen. Can you give a list of dedicated IRC clients for GNOME? How many of them are any good? Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
I don't mean to be a buzz kill here but IRC clients seem to be dime a dozen. Wouldn't it be possible to take an existing engine and redress it in GNOME 3 wear, possibly even reuse some of the GUI strings and translations? \Kenneth 2013/10/4 Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Florian Müllner fmuell...@gnome.orgwrote: Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident that it can be in time for 3.12, thus this feature proposal. See https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features/Polari for more information. Do you have something like a roadmap for what you hope to have in 3.12 ? Autocompletion, logs, ... I'm sure people have bugged you with their favourite features - would be great to know what you are planning to add, what is considered out of scope, or what other people could contribute. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On 09/10/13 04:57 PM, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: I don't mean to be a buzz kill here but IRC clients seem to be dime a dozen. Wouldn't it be possible to take an existing engine and redress it in GNOME 3 wear, possibly even reuse some of the GUI strings and translations? \Kenneth You mean like xchat-gnome that is already a redress of xchat? That would be what I would do. (But I'm not) BTW porting it doesn't look trivial due to the custom widgetery. Hub ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 22:57 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: I don't mean to be a buzz kill here but IRC clients seem to be dime a dozen. Wouldn't it be possible to take an existing engine and redress it in GNOME 3 wear, possibly even reuse some of the GUI strings and translations? The engine is Telepathy, the hard bit is the UI now. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: 3.12 feature: polari
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Florian Müllner fmuell...@gnome.orgwrote: Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident that it can be in time for 3.12, thus this feature proposal. See https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features/Polari for more information. Do you have something like a roadmap for what you hope to have in 3.12 ? Autocompletion, logs, ... I'm sure people have bugged you with their favourite features - would be great to know what you are planning to add, what is considered out of scope, or what other people could contribute. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
3.12 feature: polari
Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident that it can be in time for 3.12, thus this feature proposal. See https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features/Polari for more information. Cheers, Florian ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
