Probably, but you don't seem to mind extra load (and latency) for your other anti-spam project -- blacklists (paragraph #4). At least AutoGroups has the possibility to meet many other user requirements.Master_Cylinder wrote:Autogroups would also be more resource heavy too.
I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
I also said that autogroups might be the right solution for *other* features, I just don't think it's good for THIS one and I say that as an admin that USES autogroups to get this feature. I just wish I didn't need it for that. Blacklists are one of the features to use resources on, this one doesn't need to be as heavy. Regardless, this one isn't about blacklists although I'm about to start a new blacklist RFC...I think.Pony99CA wrote:Probably, but you don't seem to mind extra load (and latency) for your other anti-spam project -- blacklists (paragraph #4). At least AutoGroups has the possibility to meet many other user requirements.Master_Cylinder wrote:Autogroups would also be more resource heavy too.
I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
Steve
I understand, but I don't want two different ways of accomplishing the same task. If we get AutoGroups, having your suggestion would be confusing -- users will wonder which one they should use to prevent links or they'll ask which one is "better".Master_Cylinder wrote:I also said that autogroups might be the right solution for *other* features, I just don't think it's good for THIS one and I say that as an admin that USES autogroups to get this feature. I just wish I didn't need it for that.
No, it's not about blacklists, but the point is that you're not against increasing server load to get anti-spam features. I'd rather get AutoGroups (and the Can post links forum permission) than blacklists. However, I have no problem with getting both -- even though I probably wouldn't use the blacklists -- because I realize that other admins want different features than I do.Master_Cylinder wrote:Blacklists are one of the features to use resources on, this one doesn't need to be as heavy. Regardless, this one isn't about blacklists although I'm about to start a new blacklist RFC...I think.
(In other words, I don't take the "all I care about is..." approach.)Popularity does matter somewhat. If it didn't, phpBB wouldn't even have the limited Quick Reply that it does now (the devs were adamantly opposed to it).Master_Cylinder wrote:Since I'm not a dev I have no idea, that *seemed* to be what he was saying and nobody said anything differently, so I have to take it at face value. I don't think popularity (or a lack of) has anything to do with which ideas are accepted and which are rejected. I think it only matters if the devs want it or not...and who writes the first PR when there are competing ideas on how to do it I guess.
PRs get reviewed first before merging and in most cases they go through some changes before that final merge. The reviewer might not like the solution (auto groups vs whatever else has been suggested here or vice versa) and bump it back to the sender for a rewrite. In the case of this RFC it would be up to the reviewer to familiarize themselves with this topic which would be linked somewhere in the ticket which gets referenced by the PR name. This is why PRs sometimes take a while before they get merged.Pony99CA wrote:I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
Steve
There should be a permission for links, just like there is for Flash and images. Personally, I think a links permission was far more important than an images permission.Master_Cylinder wrote:No, it wouldn't, because with my solution there wouldn't be a permission for this to use with autogroups. It wouldn't be needed.
Ignoring how silly the analogy is (AutoGroups won't blow your house away if you use it), if the cannon is there already (or will be), you might as well use it to full effect.Master_Cylinder wrote:No, it's about NOT using a cannon to swat a fly. There are uses for cannons, this just isn't one of them, imho.
Don't you think that it's possible that the sheer number of requests (in other words, its popularity) might have been all that was necessary to sway their opinion? I don't know why they reversed their stance (maybe they got some new developers in who wanted it), but isn't it at least possible?Master_Cylinder wrote:IMHO, if none of the devs wanted it then it wouldn't be here, somebody changed their opinion.
I'm in for a permision for links and if one have the time to do autogroup that would be sweet.There should be a permission for links, just like there is for Flash and images. Personally, I think a links permission was far more important than an images permission.
