14
\$\begingroup\$

This question picked up two answers before it was closed as stub-code. Now, the OP added the missing snippets without removing a single line, and the answers are likely still valid as they only covered the structure of the code, which was unchanged. Why was this edit rolled back as invalidating the answers when it didn't invalidate any answers, and it made an off-topic question on-topic?

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

I believe that the code added in Rev 5 should be kept, and the question reopened, because:

  • Rev 5 doesn't invalidate any existing answers.
  • That revision just added code, and didn't really modify existing code. (If the added code were in a separate block rather than interspersed, I doubt that we would even need to have this discussion.)
  • The users who answered took the risk when they gave their advice despite having incomplete information.
  • Making the original poster ask another question with identical intent is just pointless red tape.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ draft discarded - I completely agree with this. I've rolled back, reopened and cleaned up the comments. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Sep 30 '15 at 1:37
1
\$\begingroup\$

I rolled it back, since I handle the following principles.

If a question has answers, you don't edit the code. If a question is off-topic, we close it.

This gets tricky if an off-topic question can only be made on-topic by changing the code, since the moment a question gets answers there's a catch 22 situation.

In my opinion, off-topic questions should not be answered.

If the general consensus is that this specific edit should not have been reverted, let's hear it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ You're correct that it's a catch 22 scenario here, but I think you're being a little over-zealous. I didn't realise it was off-topic before I went to bed and obviously some people decided to try and help anyway (I don't know if they answered before or after it was marked off-topic). I rectified the issue as soon as I became aware of it. This is clearly an edge case. \$\endgroup\$ – Trent Sep 30 '15 at 0:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @FizzBuzz for the record: questions that are put on hold cannot be answered. That's the whole point of doing that \$\endgroup\$ – Vogel612 Sep 30 '15 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .