That's a lot of words, but I think it boils down to: you're making an assumption that two calendar events with identical naming and identical time entries will always have a desired behavior of being deduped.

- Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing and have different descriptions, now you're increasing the number of things to equate.

- Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a time, and they then want to create a second one for another purpose. However, it keeps getting deduped and they don't know why. Now you have a user education problem that you have to solve.

- Now you might think: well just make it a toggle in the settings! Okay well now you have to add a new setting and that expands the scope of the project. Do you make it opt-in or opt-out? If it's opt-in, what if no one uses it? Do you maintain the feature if there's a migration? If it's opt-out, you still have the above problems.

I could go on. And this is mostly an exercise of not underestimating a "simple" change. Calendars (and anything involving time) in particular can get very complicated.

▲ godelski 2 days ago | parent [-]

  > will always have a desired behavior of being deduped.

Okay, let's say people like repetition. Optional flag. Great, solved.

  > Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing

To a... holiday? Sorry, I already cannot invite people to a holiday in my existing calendar. I have no ability to edit the event. This capacity does not exist in my Apple Calendar nor Google Calendar and I'm not going to check that Outlook Calendar because the answer doesn't matter.

  > Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a time,

Again, no need to auto-dedupe. But having collisions and requiring unique name entries is not that uncommon of a thing.

  > And this is mostly an exercise of not underestimating a "simple" change

Except to introduce your complexity you also had to increase the scope of the problem. Yeah, I'm all for recognizing complexity but come on man, we're talking about fucking Apple who makes you do it their way, by visiting 12 different menus, or the highway. We're talking about the same company who does not have the capacity to merge two contacts and only has the option "find duplicate contacts" but is unable to find duplicates despite multiple matching fields.

So what's your answer? Keep the bullshit and do not provide an option to allow merges or dedupes? Literally all the problems you've brought up can be resolved by prompting the user with a request to merge OR just giving them the ability to do so. You really think triplicate entries is a better result than allowing a user to select three entries, right click, "merge entries"? Come on...

▲ yacthing 2 days ago | parent [-]

> So what's your answer?

My answer is simply: It's not a 5 minute regex change.

I'm not even saying it shouldn't be prioritized or isn't worth the effort. Just that you should give the problem a bit more respect.

	▲	godelski 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		`> you should give the problem a bit more respect.` The more generalized problem? Absolutely! The very idealized trivial cases we're discussing and I've stressed we're discussing? I'm unconvinced.