XMPP Council - 2023-03-22

  1. pep.

    In the end I reused the same PR (unintentionally, I just pushed to the same branch..). I'm happy for council to delay to next week. Especially since MattJ had some more stuff to add?

  2. MattJ

    I might figure out a sentence or two about pubsub#itemreply

  3. pep.


  4. pep.

    I tried to split commits to make the review slightly easier. I id change existing normative text with my publish_node_full change so ~~. Also feedback on language / words / style etc. is welcome

  5. MattJ

    I put a PR in your PR: https://github.com/Ppjet6/xeps/pull/1

  6. MattJ

    Reviewing your changes, everything looks good, except it feels a little confusing when it says: "the service MUST delete one of the existing items"

  7. MattJ

    This MUST is not conditional on the value pubsub#publish_node_full, but it's obviously intended to be

  8. MattJ

    Hmm, I think the simplest fix may be to simply append "or reject the new item." - all the cases are explained in the following text, so it should be clear enough

  9. MattJ

    I'll add it to my PR

  10. pep.

    hmm you aven't included it yet right? I merged the PR and I read the end of your messages right after :/

  11. pep.

    I can change that myself, let me find the place

  12. pep.

    Ah right

  13. pep.

    I guess I didn't want to change the original sentence too much so that the normative parts don't change, but..

  14. pep.

    A pubsub service still needs to do all of the original text even though it doesn't implement publish-node-full

  15. pep.

    "and the maximum is reached when an item is published" this looked slightly confusing to me, but that's the original wording and it seems people understood it ok? So I'm not gonna change it

  16. MattJ

    Ah, I just committed https://github.com/Ppjet6/xeps/commit/905c18f4f2384394dab181c6ac1a406653ef55e7

  17. MattJ

    Okay, I hadn't really thought about the existing text

  18. MattJ

    It contradicts itself? :P

  19. MattJ

    One section says "the service MUST delete one of the existing items" and the other says "the service MUST return a &conflict; error"

  20. MattJ

    Sorry, I didn't realise this inconsistency was already there

  21. MattJ

    Ah no, that is indeed new text

  22. pep.

    Ah sorry I just pushed something, I hadn't noticed activity in this rom :x

  23. pep.

    Ah sorry I just pushed something, I hadn't noticed activity in this room :x

  24. pep.

    (many unread rooms)

  25. pep.

    Well.. the "MUST return a &conflict; error" is only if the option is set to "reject"

  26. pep.

    let me try to pull your changes nonetheless

  27. MattJ

    Yeah, I adjusted the order of clauses in that commit I just linked, to make that clearer (just in case...)

  28. pep.

    How did you link to a commit on my repo I haven't merged?

  29. MattJ

    Github works in mysterious ways

  30. pep.

    https://github.com/mwild1/xeps/commit/905c18f4f2384394dab181c6ac1a406653ef55e7 better.

  31. MattJ

    Now I just regret writing "any of the following values" instead of "one of the following values" (but I don't want to make merging harder)

  32. pep.

    I may be able to edit that, it's fine

  33. pep.

    Ok I've pushed our changes

  34. jonas’

    o/ due to lack of an agenda and facing conflicting private appointments, I decided to prioritise the latter and will likely not be available unless the meeting runs for >20mins

  35. jonas’

    sorry for the short notice

  36. daniel

    no worries. I was just going to encourage everyone to catch up with https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2023-March/039215.html and the corresponding PR (so we can vote on it next week) and pretty much leave it at that

  37. moparisthebest

    Yep will do