Re:Introducing temporary interaction limits
by acdha on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @08:42PM
(#14449733)
I've also thought it'd be nice to have a way for repo members to quickly send a warning to someone without spamming the thread. In this case, it'd be nice to have a way to put a specific person into a cool down period.
Re:Introducing temporary interaction limits
by BinaryIdiot on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @05:56PM
(#14448871)
This is the only purpose I see and with reactions on every post now I don't really see it much anymore. Though, in a similar thought, it would prevent brigades from HN / reddit / etc if it's, say, an unpopular feature or change and it's at the top of their front page for a while.
If it's a legit heated discussion and you limit it then you're just to come back in 24 hours to very long, impossible to follow responses. At least this has been my experience when people have left things to cool down them come back and need to respond to everything.
Re:Introducing temporary interaction limits
by codefined on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @06:33PM
(#14449103)
You mention systemd getting a lot of hate, but I've never had any problems myself with it or know anyone who has. What sort of things do people dislike about it?
Re:Introducing temporary interaction limits
by nucleardog on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @06:55PM
(#14449236)
They're fixing things that aren't obviously broken and have served us well for many, many years. That alone is enough to make me sit up and take notice. But in several cases they've then created issues this way.
It's purportedly a replacement for Sysvinit/upstart. There's massive scope creep going on. Among a zillion other things, it now includes its own DHCP server.
It's generally looked down upon to scrap an entire codebase because "eh, it's old legacy code, we can do better". And systemd is running into a lot of issues that demonstrate why that's a rule of thumb.
Re:Introducing temporary interaction limits
by richdougherty on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @05:17PM
(#14448624)
This seems like a good idea to me.
Nitpick: the captions under the checkboxes are very confusing because they're written with double negatives. "Users that have NOT X will be UNable to Y" could be "Only users that have X will be able to Y".
You cannot add emoji reaction from mobile version of Github website.
I've been using request desktop site to vote in Mobile Safari, but it is one extra thing to do.
Introducing temporary interaction limits - https://github.com/blog/2370-introducing-temporary-interacti...
If it's a legit heated discussion and you limit it then you're just to come back in 24 hours to very long, impossible to follow responses. At least this has been my experience when people have left things to cool down them come back and need to respond to everything.
It's purportedly a replacement for Sysvinit/upstart. There's massive scope creep going on. Among a zillion other things, it now includes its own DHCP server.
It's generally looked down upon to scrap an entire codebase because "eh, it's old legacy code, we can do better". And systemd is running into a lot of issues that demonstrate why that's a rule of thumb.
Nitpick: the captions under the checkboxes are very confusing because they're written with double negatives. "Users that have NOT X will be UNable to Y" could be "Only users that have X will be able to Y".