[spec] Sourcehut migration progress-update and Re: [spec] Patience

[DJ Chase]

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 thread
is not about using git as a text-distribution system, but still, thank
you for sharing your thoughts.

-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs