On 8/13/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This much complexity in blocking definitely isn't
a good idea for core.
I'm not sure what's so incredibly complicated about replacing two
arbitrary flags with three or four well-structured, nullable fields.
On 8/12/07, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At first blush, it seems that you're going to over-complicate the
blocking system. Can you explain how this will improve upon the
current nightmare that means we have multiple blocks with different
flags expiring all over the place? Can you further explain how you
plan to keep this as simple to use as possible?
I disagree that this will over-complicate the blocking system. I think
that, so long as I design the interface properly, no further
complication will be experienced from a user perspective. I'm unsure
of whether you're suggesting that it will be complicated from a
technical perspective.
As for how this improves the current system, I think that it will be
advantageous in that it will remove the current arbitrary flags, as
well as lending a great deal of flexibility - and the number of votes
for bugs 674 and 1394 demonstrate how important this is to the user
community.
In passing, I'm not sure entirely where you're getting the idea that
we have "multiple blocks with different flags expiring all over the
place". I presume this was intended to give an impression of
complexity, but I don't really see the issue - of course we're going
to have multiple blocks, and some of these blocks will have multiple
flags. The fact is that the blocking system, while a little convoluted
at the moment, can be understood, and a little extra functionality is
not going to make much of a difference.
--
Andrew Garrett