From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GSoC: collaborative editing Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:10:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87ab6ngdjb.fsf@tunes.org> <873acclilz.fsf@ambire.localdomain> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1239664311 6151 80.91.229.12 (13 Apr 2009 23:11:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ttn@gnuvola.org, bpt@tunes.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 14 01:13:09 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LtVKu-0008Ka-1I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:13:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45385 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LtVJV-0000zO-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:11:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LtVJQ-0000yD-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:11:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LtVJK-0000xN-MD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:11:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52763 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LtVJK-0000xK-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:52331) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LtVJK-0002bG-7T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LtVIk-00053O-OC; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:10:54 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:44:20 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:110250 Archived-At: A peer-to-peer approach has advantages, of course, but it also makes it very difficult to recover a total ordering and hence guarantee that every client sees the same content. Yes, but it should be possible to set it up so that conflicts are reported. They will only happen when two people edit the same area in a short period, and that is asking for trouble anyway. It is very important to promote peer-to-peer methods of doing various collaborative tasks, because servers cause issues of control vs freedom, and peer-to-peer is the only way to avoid them.