From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A0DC4360C for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8947207FF for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728848AbfJMXT1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Oct 2019 19:19:27 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:43794 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728782AbfJMXT1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Oct 2019 19:19:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C601F4C0; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:19:26 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, Konstantin Ryabitsev , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Theodore Ts'o , David Miller Subject: Re: Fwd: SSB protocol thoughts Message-ID: <20191013231926.GA13089@dcvr> References: <20191010204335.GB5440@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Dmitry Vyukov 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 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.