!GsmxjHfeAYLsTEQmjS:nixos.org

Matrix Meta (Nix)

650 Members
Discuss your proposals for the Matrix space here, before suggesting them in #matrix-suggestions:nixos.org187 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
16 Mar 2024
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rthere is a single starting point that everything points to - basically whatever user writes the first "hello world" (quite literally, as a message)20:38:02
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Reverything else.... should point to something that points to that. if it doesn't, it doesn't belong. and we can make tools which allow the mathematics to do all the work for us20:38:44
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rin fact you can apply set theory to groups of messages20:38:58
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rthat could prevent a lot of bandwidth wastage of which the matrix protocol is very guilty, let's be honest20:39:52
@k900:0upti.meK900Matrix room state is a DAG20:40:18
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rthere are optimisations now, it's not as expensive to run a homeserver as it used to be, but those optimisations are not elegant20:40:27
@k900:0upti.meK900You're literally describing how it already works 20:40:31
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ri know i'm just saying the docs and the code dont work from that conceptualisation20:41:17
@k900:0upti.meK900The problem isn't the DAG, the problem is consistency20:41:10
@k900:0upti.meK900I don't know what docs you mean, but I've looked at state resolution code in both Synapse and Ruma, and both are very much a DAG 20:42:27
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ragreed! and i think that comes because the people working on the implimentation(s) aren't aware of what they are working on20:42:27
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rthat's good i haven't looked at either in ages so i could be speaking out of turn20:43:04
@k900:0upti.meK900 And the spec explicitly refers to room stage as a graph literally in the first sentence: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/#event-graphs 20:43:10
@k900:0upti.meK900* And the spec explicitly refers to room state as a graph literally in the first sentence: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/#event-graphs20:44:33
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ras was said in the other room, it's the implimentation that suffers. i'm not saying i have the answers20:50:15
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Rand i'm also writing this on a tiny pinephone og with a cheap as chips bt kb so - maybe i'm not going to solve all the problems here and now20:50:58
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ri was just trying to answer some questions. thanks for the info - i will reference it20:51:13
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ri think actually i recall jason talking about this in the ruma room a while ago so it's good that their implimentation has kept these things in mind20:51:38
@gavinrogers:matrix.orgGavin Ras i said, it's a graph whether we acknolwedge it or not. i'm only noting that it will be an easier to manage graph if it's treated as such. using the tools of lambda calculus to make this easier seems important to me20:52:41
@rhendric:nixos.dev@rhendric:nixos.devchanged room power levels.21:08:36
17 Mar 2024
@alexou:femtodata.comAlex Ou set a profile picture.01:36:54
@aloisw:kde.org@aloisw:kde.orgJust throwing around fancy mathematical terms does not make anything easier, you have to understand what it actually means and how (if at all) it is applicable.10:22:13
@palasso:matrix.org@palasso:matrix.org joined the room.16:22:21
@palasso:matrix.org@palasso:matrix.org

Hi everyone. I noticed the migration to the new #users:nixos.org and the reason (for #nix:nixos.org being out of sync with topic, title etc.). It was also out of sync for me in showing the list of moderators in the room.

I would like to note that someone should also update the description of the space https://matrix.to/#/#community:nixos.org as the description still refers to the old room:

The primary support channel for Nix/NixOS is #nix:nixos.org.

17:00:19
@k900:0upti.meK900The alias points to the new room17:00:35
@palasso:matrix.org@palasso:matrix.org *

Hi everyone. I noticed the migration to the new https://matrix.to/#/#users:nixos.org and the reason (for https://matrix.to/#/#nix:nixos.org being out of sync with topic, title etc.). It was also out of sync for me in showing the list of moderators in the room.

I would like to note that someone should also update the description of the space https://matrix.to/#/#community:nixos.org as the description still refers to the old room:

The primary support channel for Nix/NixOS is #nix:nixos.org.

17:01:20
@palasso:matrix.org@palasso:matrix.orgOh indeed. Sorry for that. I was in the room before the alias was set 🙂 17:01:56
@palasso:matrix.org@palasso:matrix.org left the room.17:02:25
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius

Quick update on Zulip for people who may have not followed what I'm trying to do:

With the few amount of time I have in life, I have been trying to experiment with https://github.com/GearKite/MatrixZulipBridge and I believe that the way forward for having an alternative platform which is still connected to the rest of the ecosystem on Matrix would require: https://github.com/GearKite/MatrixZulipBridge/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc (at least).

In the end, even if all that work was done and that a compelling proposal (w.r.t. moderation concerns/demands) could be offered, remains one problem that I don't know how to solve.

Most of the discussions in certain channels of NixOS space are, by nature, thread-oriented: we start a discussion, we follow up there, we split maybe on a tangent, etc, etc.
If Matrix ecosystem had uniform support for threads, that wouldn't be a big deal but they are known to be broken or not rendered by certain clients.

Now, if feature negotiation could be performed and channel could be guarded by "this requires threads to have an OK experience", I believe this could also make the proposal acceptable.

I am aware of various MSCs (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3968) to have a better control of features in a room but I am not aware of any of them put in practice widely.

Nonetheless, no reasonable solution seems to exist to offer even a featureful bridge to Zulip (even if I worked with Zulip developers towards that end).

18:19:16
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius *

Quick update on Zulip for people who may have not followed what I'm trying to do:

With the few hours I have in life, I have been trying to experiment with https://github.com/GearKite/MatrixZulipBridge and I believe that the way forward for having an alternative platform which is still connected to the rest of the ecosystem on Matrix would require: https://github.com/GearKite/MatrixZulipBridge/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc (at least).

In the end, even if all that work was done and that a compelling proposal (w.r.t. moderation concerns/demands) could be offered, remains one problem that I don't know how to solve.

Most of the discussions in certain channels of NixOS space are, by nature, thread-oriented: we start a discussion, we follow up there, we split maybe on a tangent, etc, etc.
If Matrix ecosystem had uniform support for threads, that wouldn't be a big deal but they are known to be broken or not rendered by certain clients.

Now, if feature negotiation could be performed and channel could be guarded by "this requires threads to have an OK experience", I believe this could also make the proposal acceptable.

I am aware of various MSCs (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3968) to have a better control of features in a room but I am not aware of any of them put in practice widely.

Nonetheless, no reasonable solution seems to exist to offer even a featureful bridge to Zulip (even if I worked with Zulip developers towards that end).

18:19:27

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6