<tt><font size=2>> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com></font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 22:36 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:<br>
> > On 2013-05-08 10:09 (GMT+0200) Pierre-Yves Chibon composed:<br>
> > <br>
> > > you are replying to a 4 days old email on a thread that
is no<br>
> > > longer active?<br>
> > <br>
> > A: The thread was started on a Friday night.<br>
> > <br>
> > B: Some people don't get to read mail every day, or more than
a few or less <br>
> > times a week.<br>
> > <br>
> > A + B = perfectly justified timing of reply.<br>
> <br>
> C: the debate was taken to every place it could possibly go, and the<br>
> commit was reverted.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>D: read mail, have knee jerk reaction, send email,
read remainder of unread mail and realize A, B and C have already occurred
and then decided it's best to read all unread mail before allowing knee
to jerk the send button.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
> So what's the point of reviving it? Sometimes, if you don't get your<br>
> $0.02 posted in time, it's best to just sit on it.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Agreed.</font></tt>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
--<br>
John Florian</font>
<br>