1,651 reputation
2917
bio website
location
age 42
visits member for 4 years, 3 months
seen May 2 at 4:32

Saved from the web by a job in industry. Coding GUI for computer-aided railway realignment machinery.

At last a job where I have time to do stuff properly and don't have to worry about loads of unfixed bugs coming back to haunt me.


Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
I've created an issue on GitHub. No promises, but at least it's not lost.
Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@Lucas, watch GitHub, there should be some progress on this front in the near future.
Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
see here: github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments/issues/6
Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@CanadianLuke, in future there should be. Follow this issue on GitHub
Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@MadaraUchiha, if you're interested, we've moved to GitHub as you suggested (though not quite gone the same file-splitting route as you envisaged)
Mar
3
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@hexafraction, FYI we've moved to GitHub.
Feb
27
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
On reflexion, I think this should be done per site on their own meta. @Izzy did this very recently on SR
Feb
25
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@Caleb, ok, sounds good, I'll try from home later on maybe.
Feb
25
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@Caleb, my problem is I've always had problems (network and my understanding) connecting to github, so most of what I've done has been copy/paste from the web interface. So merging is a challenge...
Feb
25
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
OK, I can do it without a pull request. Looking now...
Feb
25
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
OK, I'm not sure whether I know how to merge that without you sending a pull request. @Caleb, if you're really motivated, there's a couple of other pending suggestions/requests: getting it working for chrome, and splitting into sub-files (i.e. moving from gist to Github proper)... :)
Feb
24
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
ok. Got it. Can't promise I'll be looking at it in the very near future, but at least I have it and can check it out some time.
Feb
24
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
Nice to see someone else getting involved with the heavy lifting :) That Pastebin link shows empty for me though.
Feb
13
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@John, rats, you're right :( I uploaded what I had on my machine to gist, but never downloaded again to make sure it worked. Checking now... OK. It was a copy/paste problem (line returns). You need to re-install (click here).
Feb
12
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
To be precise, the bug should be fixed, but I haven't yet put any thought into the adding new comments request.
Jan
27
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@joeytje50. @[OP] works, but if they've got spaces in their names, you'll just have to make do, I'm afraid. Or hack the script yourself a bit.
Jan
9
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
Or meta Stack Overflow? Depends on whether you think there are standard cross-site messages. Some users seem to prefer to tailor their comments for specific sites. And, that aside, I think it is probably preferable for each person to craft their own, because that avoids the appearance of 'robo-commenting' - which seems to be the main fear that prevents this script being integrated into SE.
Dec
4
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
I've got a fix for that, coming soon...
Dec
4
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
ok, that detail escaped me :) I still can't reproduce your problem though. Is it a variant of this one?
Dec
4
comment AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE
@Derek朕會功夫. OK, I think I've got another version coming soon (just bug fixes). What's best: you do a fork which just removes the update check, or I include a check to see what browser the script is on? I don't really want to completely remove the check, as it's useful for other browsers.