Split links 2015-06-19, 17:24:40 This message refers to Jimbro's earlier message:Quote from: Luxor on 2015-06-18, 11:17:20Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-18, 10:19:49This kind of language doesn't belong here, Belfrager.It's not needed that's for sure. But as it's the "free speech" thread, I'll try to ignore it. Not that I am condoning it though Belfrager. Quoting it, doesn't really help matters.Unfortunately for that reference Jimbro's message had just split. but the reference had taken no notice of that. It saidCode: [Select]1019.msg41789#msg41789 but would have needed to be Code: [Select]1304.msg41789#msg41789 for the link to actually work, 1304 being the new thread. In other words this would have been unbroken:Quote from: Luxor on 2015-06-18, 11:17:20Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-18, 10:19:49This kind of language doesn't belong here, Belfrager.It's not needed that's for sure. But as it's the "free speech" thread, I'll try to ignore it. Not that I am condoning it though Belfrager. Quoting it, doesn't really help matters.
Re: Split links Reply #1 – 2015-06-19, 18:02:44 The current version of SMF stems from 2011. I wonder if the 2.1 beta, to which we'll upgrade after it stabilizes more, includes something like that.