On 1/4/2011 7:54 AM, sideral wrote:
> Paul Louden<paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Basically it sounds like your objection to improving bookmarking is
>> "it's buggy"
> I am sorry to see that you respond to what my "objection" "sounds like",
> rather than responding to the individual arguments I've made. I
> understand the need to summarize a long argument in a catchy phrase, but
> your statement is wrong on so many levels that it verges on insinuation.
>

I responded to it with "sounds like" because I literally mean that's
what it appears like to me. I thought I had responded to your actual
objections as well, further down, but since you linked me to a flyspray
task rather than spelling them out I was left to my own ability to pick
them out of a post that wasn't just about your objections to using
bookmarking.

I'd be happy to have you state your objections clearly so I could
understand better.

If it's just that "bookmarking is a more complex system" isn't the fact
that bookmarking will be remaining somewhat of a mitigation to that
argument? We're not getting rid of it, so the more complex system will
still be cluttering the code.

As well, the advantage of bookmarks is that auto resume would always be
available, whether or not a user was using the database, rather than
forcing them to. This seems fairly significant to me, since there may
not always be space for the database. It can grow quite large if there's
a large number of files.
Received on 2011-01-04