timeliness Re: Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?

[Ian Malone]

On 9 May 2013 05:44, Felix Miata <mrmazda at earthlink.net> 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.
>
>
>
There is something of a difference between coming in late with a relevant
and previously unconsidered point and coming in late to snipe.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130509/b322ca66/attachment.html>