On 8/13/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@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@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.