On Monday 03 February 2003 7:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having finer granularity doesn't necessarily mean that it would be used to
have notify interval shorter than 60 seconds. it would also allow notify
intervals of, for example, 90 seconds. there still might be a lower limit
of 60
On Mon Feb 03, 2003; 12:48PM + Edward Brocklesby propagated the following:
On Monday 03 February 2003 7:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having finer granularity doesn't necessarily mean that it would be used to
have notify interval shorter than 60 seconds. it would also allow notify
nsx said:
Yes, I am campaigning for both better precision, and a change of the lower
notify interval limit. I suppose they sort of go hand in hand, since to
either abolish or lower the lower limit, you'd probably need to provide
better precision anyway.
Kev said:
Personally, I don't see the
Edward Brocklesby wrote:
[snip]
and I'm not likely to talk to someone who's here for 30 seconds and then
gone again
[snip]
-larne.
Try using dial-up service over the US's PSTN. ;)
--
Ben
msg00259/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Normally I would not follow up to a request for discussion, but nsx asked
me to share why I believe in the status quo. The entirity of this message
is not a statement of policy or rules or anything of the sort with regard
to epic. It simply states my personal opinions as an epic user, and the
I'd assume that most users who would set notify_interval, would know what
they're doing, but I may be wrong.
I can certainly see the scenario in which a new user who likes to experiment,
unsuspectingly sets this to what most would consider an unreasonable value
(such as 1), but I also assume even
