Charles Kerr

This has failed CI a handful of times, so maybe it actually is a PR issue. @t-8ch PTAL

@mikedld wdyt about this for `4.0.1`? I think this is safe but would like a 2nd opinion

> Why is this a draft? @bheesham ^ ping

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Randomizing inarguably does make life harder for anyone trying to block Transmission and/or trying to use it as an attack vector, but...

> On a side note, I think there should be a mention in the docs about the caveat of ticking "randomize port on each start", as it will take time...

> @ckerr perhaps this can be tagged as a "good first issue" and a "PR welcome" for anybody out there who wants a smaller task than something more difficult (like...

The point of that milestone is that we're not considering big UI changes like this for 4, e.g. we're in string freeze and trying to get out all the bugs...

> @ckerr any chance of this making 4.1.0? I really am undecided on this PR. I want to encourage PRs and the code looks OK, but this moves the Qt...

> > without it being a very toggle-able view. > > I think that's a more than reasonable compromise. You say that because you're not the one maintaining the code....

@Pentaphon I think we should stop our back-and-forth here. It's not a productive use of this PR. - It's unfair to @Schlossgeist, who put in some decent work on this...