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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
