On Mar 23, 2016, at 12:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >I'm with Mark here.
Okay cool, I think we're all in agreement about how this should behave. >I think the right thing to do is to file an RFE with Postorius to have >the "link new address" screen "suggest" the existing display names, >but not automatically add any. Nice! We can keep the model's intention and have some nice suggestions in the ui. > > The intention in the model is that the user's display name can be > > used as a fallback for any linked address that has no display name. > >Also have a "inherit user name" value in the list. Despite the way I >lean above, this could be default. But definitely EIBTI (@aditya >"explicit is better than implicit") -- we should not take None for >"carte blanche". I certainly agree as far as mining for display names in linked, but not subscribed, addresses. However, I do want to keep the intended semantic that if the *subscribed* address has no display name, we fall back to the linked user record. The idea is that a user can set their display name once, in their user record, and won't need to set it every time they link (and validate) a new address to their profile. Aditya, do you think you have enough information to finish up mr !104? Cheers, -Barry
pgprIFkJMEQQb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
