From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Yuan Fu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A new collaborative editing package (maybe tangent) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:14:47 -0800 Message-ID: <1E21F13D-008F-4E22-96AC-4B37B753EFC5@gmail.com> References: <3E633CB5-B727-4933-8CF1-E1044CF39E70@gmail.com> <402A5724-BDDC-49A3-BE51-E122FB05D494@gmail.com> <87wmspwmiw.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39495"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 06 08:15:58 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rM0uU-000A2i-D9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 08:15:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM0tc-0006zR-V1; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 02:15:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM0ta-0006yN-SP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 02:15:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM0tZ-0007AF-4K; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 02:15:02 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-7bbec1d1c9dso17799039f.1; Fri, 05 Jan 2024 23:15:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704525299; x=1705130099; darn=gnu.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CDBPz8h8PCXBy8gGKTChZNNuvQwpdt8nHfF3J7i3sHg=; b=mbYgRBKgRk1NevfRoZoQaUuZ2rr26LrILU1QU1dKqsgaxnr3zBJc68XF0unLDf/8TE BTuoDJx6NQTf10ZRtfn5nhmvt5vreR7aZWY8D16sSiazwK9bFT3tXMPu8d9h+32k3wnJ agKYQDLU8KyPaVqriAxDbCXJL7qA7fE8oAS7KnbPUosQon4kIFpIpAoAsJK3nZeo7x0a Df2Kj5o5kfQllyM62Cy0/dqVih077JF/kFawa4Ntq9vCv55j15qkPxoJ0T9prT29pC9J In0mxrbAicI/2QQRFaF/UBm3P15q0Vgoll1QHdR81oVpEm7C8ZXoRAU3kLVLYvH8fpgy G7ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704525299; x=1705130099; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CDBPz8h8PCXBy8gGKTChZNNuvQwpdt8nHfF3J7i3sHg=; b=C9C759uZtsJJevX5su5tVzM20bSdu7ANqjWfXOme8AC1VvbZeIm3Beu7mpeq+AZuEY eP45eN7lv/yxjSGtS963TrS9eoOkY0zInQAdZlXYjtWPdR7UdTohYfb2/N1TskOMbpFA uHxeLmkSzKY/5DU5768frgWHtfwl7m7wqo4BEr4ROb9UNFvfUJsK5lPE5LsQSrgGFCQz bwki8TWkXJ8IMqjRUkXeuk6rF/MgvwS5TaYXh/s9+cPaz/j1wiPTk/tGMENj9tkTF6HE YCZvDtp/73/7PHYDMqiQSCUuDJ0XEP9ZLdE/nyRZtEZtFmb2iaEihKOF6RuwnKbFpt+H noGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywmwgf+iV0pYVZ16DolJ/JDOWFMt+XCa/GfwOdNwz2Vu4M1ekYt FpqyYMHWPRipaaE1cLSPDC8yKFcY3d0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH969BTDsb9C6nXzgyseBay8Fw9V+KIyxppORlXTlY8aTpwWxGJe+lS6jX63s/Dam0TJsihEA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c89:b0:360:7ba1:69f5 with SMTP id w9-20020a056e021c8900b003607ba169f5mr925911ill.46.1704525299026; Fri, 05 Jan 2024 23:14:59 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-117-161-177.res.spectrum.com. [172.117.161.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y5-20020a170902700500b001cf59ad964asm2432489plk.140.2024.01.05.23.14.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jan 2024 23:14:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c; envelope-from=casouri@gmail.com; helo=mail-io1-xd2c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:314591 Archived-At: > On Jan 5, 2024, at 8:33 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >=20 > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] >=20 >> I don=E2=80=99t think we are installing anything into Emacs. = Collab-mode, >> if ever completes, will be like any other Emacs package. >=20 > They are all installed in Emacs. If we add a package to Emacs that > choose method A instead of method B, that choice has inertia. In > principle, we could later decide method B is better and switch to it. > But it can be difficult to switch to mainly using method B, and even > harder to switch entirely. We would tend to continue in path A > by inertia. >=20 > I don't know anythng about these two methods for collaborative > editing, so I have no preference. I do know that whatever we do about > this will create inertia for the future. Rather than letting > historical chance decide which course we take, let's make a thoughtful > decision. >=20 > Would it make sense for collab-mode to support both methods? Are the > differences just matters of detail, or are the concepts > incommensurable? It wouldn=E2=80=99t make sense. As I said, they are significantly = different.=20 >=20 >> Also, since what ever protocol collab-mode uses will be limited to >> collab-mode itself, >=20 > Why so? There are other collaborative editing systems, right? Why > can't it be compatible with those that use the same method - or at > least one of them (if they are incompatible with each other)? I don=E2=80=99t think any one of them are designed with interoperability = in mind; most of them are non-free software. Interoperability isn=E2=80=99= t my priority either. My priority is to make collab-mode = feature-complete, stable, and secure. Yuan=