-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 153
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
prepare 1.52.0 #3560
prepare 1.52.0 #3560
Conversation
To test the changes in this pull request, install this apk: |
## v1.52.0 | ||
2025-01 | ||
|
||
* new group consistency algorithm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if this is too technical, most users won't understand what it means. Maybe it's possible to find sth everyone understands. In the general direction of "Avoid situations where some members of a group think that Alice is part of the group and others don't" but this is too long and also everyone will wonder "who is Alice??" - I can't think of a really good phrasing myself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Avoid situations where some members of a group think that someone is part of the group and others don't" or "Avoid situations where the members of a group have differing infos on who is part of the group" could work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
otoh, "algorithm" has become a more well known word in main-stream media, ex "twitter/facebook filter algorithm" etc. and "group consistency" is clear and anything having a "new" label should be good/better right??? 🤣
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
some people might have never experienced these problems so mentioning it might work more as a negative point than positive "so this was actually that broken?"
@adbenitez probably we shouldn't use auto-merge on PRs that don't have a review yet 😂 |
oops!! yeah, in theory if one has something one wants to be changed before merged, the "request changes" or just comment should be used instead of approving, but it is easy to overlook, I honestly was not expecting any changes needed hence why I enabled auto-merge once someone just approved the PR |
No description provided.