Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

repost feature #1

Open
caryoscelus opened this issue Nov 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

repost feature #1

caryoscelus opened this issue Nov 16, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@Zauzolkov Zauzolkov mentioned this issue Nov 20, 2022
6 tasks
@Zauzolkov
Copy link

I see at least two approaches to implement this functionality:

  1. Create a new table and store a link to original post. Old clients will ignore unknown table (any repost will be invisible). Draft is implemented in Repost feature #2. Also we can add some other fields, like a user comment to the original post (something like a "reply to post" feature)
  2. Add new fields to an existing post table. In this case we are able to add a placeholder for old clients. For example we can clone post body and add a custom header in the beginning. Also this technique allows to preserve / archive the original message (in case of modification by author of original post).

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Member Author

wow , you're quick !

those were two approaches i've been considering .

Also this technique allows to preserve / archive the original message (in case of modification by author of original post).

that's a good point and feature (the feature however could be implemented in first solution as well) . unfortunately one could also create pseudo-repost . 0me like all the 0net sites signs all of the user's file so there's little chance to store all the versions and make sure everything is kept nicely signed and proofs are everywhere

overall i was thinking of attracting more people to discuss features and their impl . basically first solution can only be implemented if enough users are ready to back it and jump client

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Member Author

given the inertia of 0net users , i'm inclined to think second option is better

(unless we somehow achieve new users flood that will outnumber current ranks)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants