Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?
awilliam at redhat.com
Thu May 9 04:53:59 UTC 2013
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 00:44 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> 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
> police commentary.
If I get behind on reading devel@, what I do is read through the
backlog, writing replies as I read, but *don't send any of them*. I just
leave them open. If it turns out someone else already said what I wanted
to say already, or the thread diverged into something else, or it became
toxic and then died, or whatever, I just trash the message.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel