Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?
mrmazda at earthlink.net
Thu May 9 04:44:02 UTC 2013
On 2013-05-09 00:02 (GMT-0400) Adam Williamson composed:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 22:36 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> On 2013-05-08 10:09 (GMT+0200) Pierre-Yves Chibon composed:
>> > you are replying to a 4 days old email on a thread that is no
>> > longer active?
>> A: The thread was started on a Friday night.
>> B: Some people don't get to read mail every day, or more than a few or less
>> times a week.
>> A + B = perfectly justified timing of reply.
> C: the debate was taken to every place it could possibly go, and the
> commit was reverted.
> So what's the point of reviving it? Sometimes, if you don't get your
> $0.02 posted in time, it's best to just sit on it.
So everyone who cannot maintain currency has to catch up 100% prior to
writing a response coming to mind while reading, lest he be publicly
chastised by temporal relevance police? Likely "revival" was not the primary
objective of the late writer. The late arrival would much better have been
left ignored than have the already too long thread be further extended by OT
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
More information about the devel