| 18 Jul 2025 |
 Charles | yeah it's sad but i believe it is necessary | 17:45:42 |
| Charles | at least, for the particular use cases i am interested in, such as the use case nixos has with all of its rooms | 17:46:09 |
 emily | In reply to @cat:feline.support
Thats the only time you can block your own ability to send an event in v11 and before. so we can't even really have people tombstone their rooms to be adopted into the space | 17:46:37 |
| emily | because they can bypass moderation in search indefinitely far in the future? | 17:46:56 |
| emily | I guess search could ignore everything after the tombstone if it doesn't already? | 17:47:04 |
 Cat | Yes in theory that is a risk | 17:47:18 |
| Cat | but like its all tbh dependent on your threat model. | 17:47:32 |
| Cat | But yes there is a case for only using forking upgrades | 17:47:43 |
| emily | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
yeah it's sad but i believe it is necessary availability is overrated and consistency is underrated. you can have problems "as bad as" lack of availability with AP systems anyway | 17:47:49 |
| Cat | when you adopt a room | 17:47:50 |
| Cat | since you could say the adopted room is not nixos sanctioned | 17:48:01 |
| Cat | and have that be the rule | 17:48:11 |
| Cat | only nixos sanctioned rooms are allowed to be in the upgrade tree. | 17:48:25 |
| Cat | i mean upgrade line. | 17:48:31 |
| emily | ACID is great. admittedly centralization is a bit sad. | 17:48:39 |
| emily | what is a forking upgrade? just making an entirely new room without a backpointer? | 17:49:14 |
| Cat | Yup. | 17:49:21 |
 f0x | you could do a manual 'tombstone' where you just send a normal message redirecting people to the new nixos-controlled room, and limit further posting | 17:49:25 |
| Charles | i think a protocol could get at least some outage resiliency by having a set of trusted write nodes, but not sure yet what the best way to accomplish that would be | 17:49:25 |
| Charles | * i think a more centralized protocol could get at least some outage resiliency by having a set of trusted write nodes, but not sure yet what the best way to accomplish that would be | 17:49:33 |
| Cat | Forking upgrades are upgrades where only 1 side of the chain points at the other room | 17:49:36 |
| Charles | too real | 17:49:40 |
| f0x | ah, also what I ment :D | 17:49:52 |
| Cat | so either the predecessor points at a successor that does not recognise that room as the parent | 17:49:53 |
| Cat | or a child room does not get recognised by its parent. Aka what would happen if someone defined a nix room as precursor when forking nix community. | 17:50:15 |
| Cat | if a freenode situation ever happened in the nix project that would be a likely thing to happen. | 17:50:39 |
| emily | I guess we could do that for new rooms | 17:59:33 |
| emily | many of our existing rooms are adopted though | 17:59:34 |
| emily | oops sorry network issues | 17:59:43 |
| emily | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
i think a protocol could get at least some outage resiliency by having a set of trusted write nodes, but not sure yet what the best way to accomplish that would be well it's still ultimately just going to be a Paxos type thing right | 18:03:57 |
