Exclude github.com
Exclude github.com
GitHub.com's UI is quite broken without JavaScript, and this website is extraordinarily popular, especially with developers, so NoScript should probably exclude this domain by default.
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0
Re: Exclude github.com
Why?
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
Re: Exclude github.com
mcandre. this is incredibly arrogant. suggesting a significant exclusion without any reason is not a good way to get any changes made. i see you've made bunch of similar requests for your favourite sites to be whitelisted, as if your use case is somehow special or superior to others. it isn't.mcandre wrote:GitHub.com's UI is quite broken without JavaScript, and this website is extraordinarily popular, especially with developers, so NoScript should probably exclude this domain by default.
So what if github is popular with developers? Fox News is popular with christian gun nuts, The Guardian with woolly-headed liberals, Reddit with libertarian programmers, Riseup with anarchists. In fact, *every site* is popular with someone. Why are programmers/github special (hint: they're not)?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:48.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/48.0
Re: Exclude github.com
Actually, default-whitelisting github.com might possibly have a valid use case in the foreseeable future as NoScript source code and bug tracking will be moving to Github. Whether it will be default-whitelisted or not is up to Giorgio.
That said, robinp's post still stands.
That said, robinp's post still stands.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
Re: Exclude github.com
Ugh.bug tracking will be moving to Github
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2 Lightning/5.4