Automerging buddies

[Jorge Villaseñor]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Etan Reisner
<pidgin at unreliablesource.net> wrote:
> My concern would be that contacts are sufficiently invisible enough that
> we still get people occasionally "losing" buddies while reorganizing their
> buddy lists (which is an actual interaction with the UI).
>
> I can only imagine that people will be utterly and completely mystified if
> they add a new account and see no indication that any of their buddies
> were added to the list.
>
> Without indicating the auto-merge somewhere obvious in the UI and/or
> making contacts much more obvious (and potentially even then) I'm a bit
> concerned about this becoming a "set and forget" option which causes
> "breakage" much later down the line.

I guess the last time this was proposed it included a merge-accept
dialog in which the UI, when finding contacts to merge, show a dialog
with relevant information to the user to accept/decline the merge.

I think this dialog plus the preference to disable this function would be ok.

> I'm also concerned about incorrect merges. Using remote buddy set aliases
> seems too risky to me and using only "local" aliases may not be useful
> enough to make this worthwhile (for services that can't store that
> information and/or don't differentiate between local and remote set
> aliases).
>
>    -Etan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



-- 
Masca

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?