> No print publication on the planet does this. The print editions of the very same publications — The New York Times, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The New Yorker — don’t do anything like this.
Ehh... I cancelled my SF Chronicle subscription a year ago. Since then I've received a dozen predatory phone calls and just add many letters. Plus when you do have the subscription they alter prices on you like a cable TV provider. So in some ways print is better than web but in other ways it's worse.
What drives me nuts is if I slam my cursor against the right side of the window with the intent to click and drag the scroll bar of a maximized window up and down then the 1px wide window border gets selected and the whole window moves up and down. This has been a bug for several years.
When I select there, if I pull away from the window it resizes and won't drag. If I move the pointer up-down on the right or left side, it moves the window and won't resize.
Which seems like a sensible and convenient choice to me.
It's definitely neither sensible nor convenient. I expect it to trigger the scrollbar, not move the whole window. The only way one should be able to move the window is to drag the title bar. There's no reason clicking and dragging the 1px window border should ever move the whole window. Every Linux window manager, Windows, and IIRC Mac System <= 9 behaves this way.
yeah, I thought they were going to provide some sort of rationale as to why they've never implemented this. instead this post just basically goes "yeah, you guys have been asking for this feature for 10 years, and... it's a good idea! let's do it."
Imagine the panic inside Microsoft right now where they're all-in in "AI in everything, everywhere" and the results have been so bad that GitHub is being forced to finally let repo owners disable PRs to make it stop.
Honestly, it's not an area where there has been consensus on when we talk with maintainers. Some folks worry about that reducing the very nature of open source collaboration.
We've had the ability to temporarily disable PR's for a while for maintainers but we felt like it was time to look at this again and see what folks think.
> Some folks worry about that reducing the very nature of open source collaboration.
Collaboration on repos where the authors explicitly don't accept PRs and are going to auto close or ignore them? I don't get it - it's not like you're going to force opensource on anyone.
It is almost like finding 20 year old bugs on Mozilla tracker. That said GitHub doesn't have the excuse of mostly relying on volunteer work.
Also I don't find GitLab that much better. I remember the feature request for "Give option to disable automatic adding of 'Closes ISSUE' to merge requests" closed with "Why would you need an option for that, everyone either loves it or likes manually removing it every time.
Ehh... I cancelled my SF Chronicle subscription a year ago. Since then I've received a dozen predatory phone calls and just add many letters. Plus when you do have the subscription they alter prices on you like a cable TV provider. So in some ways print is better than web but in other ways it's worse.
reply