Timeline for Revising or removing the "Best practices" topicality rule
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:26 | history | edited | rolfl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Version 3
|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:24 | comment | added | rolfl | @200_success I am inclined to agree, again... so, there is some line between version 1, and version 2, but a version three should make the point solidly.... | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:22 | comment | added | 200_success | In Version 2, the author tried to write code, and probably believes in good faith that it is working code, even though it is actually buggy. I would consider it to be on-topic. Also, if you rephrased the question as "I think my code is thread-safe — can you confirm?" then it is more obviously on-topic. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:20 | history | edited | rolfl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add off-topic reason
|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:19 | history | edited | syb0rg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Better formatting.
|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:17 | comment | added | rolfl | @200_success What about version 2? | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:16 | history | edited | rolfl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added version 2.
|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | 200_success | Obviously, we agree! | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | 200_success | I'd say that it violates the "asking for code to be written" rule. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | rolfl | It is my opinion that the above is off topic because it is asking for code to be written. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 0:00 | history | answered | rolfl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |