Since historical lock is not set in stone
This is true by design,
to be notified if the status of the particular question changes.
but in practice the historical lock is never reversed. (So this defeats the purpose of following a question with an historical lock to receive activity updates - because it's unlikely to happen.)
In the comments a few objections were raised
but this is good on answers.
True, although the FR only focused on questions. The follow posts feature had a two-fold functionality:
- Receive activity notifications in the inbox
- Following answers can't be done using bookmarks.
So the argument of following answers on a question that has an historical lock has merit that doesn't depend much on hypothetical activity but more on the fact there's no other way to "bookmark answers" other than following them.
My initial argument against this FR was 2-fold
- Activity on historically locked posts is so unlikely the possibility is almost theoretical.
- Followed posts can't be searched so keeping the list short and manageable seems like the more sensible use case for most users.
Another argument was raised in the comments:
Similarly having a large list of followed posts does not seem to be problematic either.
- Users with large Q&A portfolios or accounts that get a lot of activity frequently say their inbox has too much activity (and the notifications can't be muted), so there is that problem with having a large follow list: it will tend to flood your inbox.
And yet another argument that isn't new:
but some users want XY
- Lastly, some arguments of following inactive Q&As seems to miss the intended functionality that following was designed for instead proposing to use it like a variation of categorizing bookmarks for answers&questions for which there have been many FRs in the past 1, 2, 3, etc... and well matured debates I won't reproduce here.