💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 007392.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 08:38:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DJ Chase u9000 at posteo.mx
Mon Oct 25 18:11:18 BST 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 2021-10-25 at 11:36 -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote:
I'm on my second read through since.... just at a concept level this
gets a 'but why?' out of me. Ya, jumping to a whole new protocol is
neat and exciting and has some uses. Re-purposing git has me
scratching my head. In a way I get it at a conceptual level and like
it. Have the client do a pull request for your material so that if
something ever happens to yoru server their copy still exists. Which
part of me finds agreeable.
On the other hand I dislike how Solderpunk is talking that the pull
requests seem to be automated and continual whenever you visit a given
site. What if I stumble on a site i don't want? I shouldn't have to go
dig through settings to kick it out of the pull request chain.
Nitpicky I suppose and easily fixed by making it a proactive choice to
add a given site to your pull request list (Essentially your favorites
list really.) The other is why not automate the process? I'm fairly
sure that is something git already does and allows since I can
literally go into command line and 'git clone: [address]' So having a
timer function to make pull requests at x time and or when connect
next' should be a no-brainer for clients to handle.
I don't like this as a solution though since it feels like one of
those things that works just well enough to fix the problem, but
doesn't solve the other problems Solderpunk himself admits this has
yet keeps talking like it's 'temporary.' Software, much like
carpentry, is a case where the temporary fix often becomes permanent.
So while conceptually having a git-like setup for gemini servers to
use so clients with the git feature (or just users performing pull
requests) is neat. The fact that the guy that is pitching this as a
fix himself admits this doens't solve everything leaves me not liking
it, since any fix down the road will have to account for this blessed
by the creator concept is now out there and ... I mean there are worse
things than having background pull requests that are handled by the
client? I'm just afraid, as a user, that this could introduce
something that would hamstring a more proper solution rather than this
'80/20' that Solderpunk is speaking of.
I think you've conflated Solderpunk's post and this thread. This threadis not about using git as a text-distribution system, but still, thankyou for sharing your thoughts.
-- DJ ChaseThey, Them, Theirs