From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org,
Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: SSB protocol thoughts
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:19:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191013231926.GA13089@dcvr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+YU78dQUeFob7NXaOU-gjnKHtxpceQj2c4=2aBV0_PSxg@mail.gmail.com>
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks for confirming some of my fears :)
Yeah, I thought about this for several years before deciding
on starting public-inbox. ActivityPub/ForgeFed would have
the same problems w.r.t. spam/flooding/malicious actors.
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:43 PM Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> > Anything about bridging with email?
>
> I wrote a bit about email/github bridges here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/d6e8f49e93ece6f208e806ece2aa85b4971f3d17.1569152718.git.dvyukov@google.com/
> But mainly it just says that the bridges should be possible. Do you
> foresee any potential problems with that?
Quoting part of that: https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/d6e8f49e93ece6f208e806ece2aa85b4971f3d17.1569152718.git.dvyukov@google.com/
> > Two more interesting/controversial possibilities.
> > If we have an email bridge, we could also have a github bridge!
> > Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we need to do this now or at all.
> > I am saying that if UI part is abstracted enough, then it may be
> > theoretically possible to take a PR on a special dedicated github
> > project, convert it to "patch for review" SSB message and inject
> > into the system. Comments on the patch will be proxied back to github.
> > Andrew will receive this over email bridge and review and merge,
> > not even suspecting he is reviewing a github PR (w00t!).
The problem is conversations on GitHub can also get siloed off and
formatting/threading screwed up in ways which are confusing to
GitHub's non-threaded UI.
If it can be made 100% transparent, sure; but IMHO it's also
dangerous hypocrisy to be endorsing and promoting proprietary
systems. Most Open Source hackers obviously disagree with me.
If GitHub provided email access (like Gmail) that interoperated
with any other mail service, then that'd be fine. But we can't
expect them to do that because social networks' business models
are based on locking users into using their network for
communication.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-13 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CACT4Y+Y0_2rCnt3p69V2U2_F=t4nMOmAOL-RGwxSS-ufk41NAg@mail.gmail.com>
2019-10-10 17:39 ` Fwd: SSB protocol thoughts Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-10 20:43 ` Eric Wong
2019-10-11 6:20 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-13 23:19 ` Eric Wong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191013231926.GA13089@dcvr \
--to=e@80x24.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).