This is a strawman. I reject your premise that losing or bungling user’s data is at risk here.
Yes the ‘answer’ value is on the comment but the full ActivityPub representation of the comment is only under the control of the comment author in the most narrow and technical sense - only for those who have access to the underlying database of their instance (to get the private key for signing the Activity). There is no realistic scenario where this becomes a big problem. And if it does, I can spit out a new release that changes it within a day.
This is a really small part of the picture and to dig down into one boolean value in a project of 50k lines of code and use that to dismiss the whole thing is just asinine.
Oh you mean you reject the changes to which other people, more familiar than me with the piefed codebase, already voiced objections? You call this a strawman because you heard that this is the word that dismisses your opponent’s opinions? Brilliant defense there.
I reject your premise that losing or bungling user’s data is at risk here.
So you write changes into users’ data, but you reject the opinion that this might bungle users’ data because you never cared for the data’s integrity. Gewd jerb there.
And if it does, I can spit out a new release that changes it within a day.
Ah, great. Have you ever considered spitting out a ‘new release’ before this becomes a problem at all, before malicious actors can botch as many posts as they could? No? Well thank you, that’s all I wanted to know.
to dig down into one boolean value in a project of 50k lines of code and use that to dismiss the whole thing is just asinine.
Yes, thank you for confirming that you don’t really care about users’ data and you will gleefully give it up for a half-hour of your time thinking over what you’re doing.
This is a strawman. I reject your premise that losing or bungling user’s data is at risk here.
Yes the ‘answer’ value is on the comment but the full ActivityPub representation of the comment is only under the control of the comment author in the most narrow and technical sense - only for those who have access to the underlying database of their instance (to get the private key for signing the Activity). There is no realistic scenario where this becomes a big problem. And if it does, I can spit out a new release that changes it within a day.
This is a really small part of the picture and to dig down into one boolean value in a project of 50k lines of code and use that to dismiss the whole thing is just asinine.
Oh you mean you reject the changes to which other people, more familiar than me with the piefed codebase, already voiced objections? You call this a strawman because you heard that this is the word that dismisses your opponent’s opinions? Brilliant defense there.
So you write changes into users’ data, but you reject the opinion that this might bungle users’ data because you never cared for the data’s integrity. Gewd jerb there.
Ah, great. Have you ever considered spitting out a ‘new release’ before this becomes a problem at all, before malicious actors can botch as many posts as they could? No? Well thank you, that’s all I wanted to know.
Yes, thank you for confirming that you don’t really care about users’ data and you will gleefully give it up for a half-hour of your time thinking over what you’re doing.