I was going to suggest an alternative approach being through enhancements to chiselapp.com - but that is not any better than a mailing list if the forum content is not stored inside the fossil repo for the associated project, as was the desire of the OP, iiuc.
On the surface, it sounds appealing to have the project discussion stored alongside the code in the same secure repository. That way a developer cloning the repo would also have access to the discussion history too, with the other obvious benefits as mentioned by the OP (understanding and correct handling of artifact IDs, etc). Non-developers cloning the repository might not appreciate having to download years of project discussions, but: * net is pretty fast these days and discussion would compress well in the sqlite repo. * PERHAPS the forum content could be optional when cloning These concerns would be mitigated with the planned Fossil 2.0 feature of allowing non-full repository clones. As Warren says, contributing to the forum would require authentication. Frustrating, but sadly a necessity. Not having to hunt down and possibly register for a project's discussion system -- it's built-in when you clone. Ok, for the authentication need you'd still need some form of registration, but I haven't thought enough about that (OpenID?). Not all projects use simple mailing lists and as Warren pointed out in several posts recently, there are many flashy options projects could choose from, each requiring their own unique log-in and user interface and usage philosophy (mailing list vs forum, for example). Given that Richard has expressed an interest in building his own email server, maybe the chances of bundling a project's forum within its fossil repository in the future exceed zero. :-) On 13 February 2016 at 04:54, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Yannick Duchêne <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:24:05 -0700 > > Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 12, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Boruch Baum <boruch_b...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> Email has its problems, but there’s an awful lot of antispam > infrastructure around it that would have to be recreated to allow > fossil-scm.org (or sqlite.org) to self-host a web forum with equivalent > protections. > > > > But the issue from a user point of view, is near the same: you receive a > lot of email on a mailing list > > This list averages about 10 messages a day, and that’s including the > occasional flame-fest, which you can entirely ignore if you like. > > That’s “a lot”? > > > while on a forum, you just follow some threads > > I see that you’re using Claws Mail. From its features page: "'Ignore > thread’ option”, and "Watch marked threads”. Thunderbird and other mailers > have such features, too. > > Those features aren’t universal, but simply having a thread-aware mailer > makes ignoring unwanted threads straightforward. Just skip over threads > whose title is uninteresting. > > The other key email management practice is filtering messages into > per-list folders, so you can choose where in your day you wish to spend > time looking at the mailing list for each particular project. Every > mailing list manager includes at least one tag in the email to make such > filtering easy. > > In this case, there are at least three such tags: > > Subject: [fossil-users]… > To: fossil-users@… > List-Id: Fossil SCM user's discussion… > > > opting-out means receiving nothing at all any‑more > > Mailers with thread-kill features still download all the list traffic. > They just send it to the bit bucket or otherwise hide it. > > Once upon a time, people complained about the ISP costs associated with > downloading unwanted email, but it’s lost in the noise in today’s typical > IP traffic. > > > I'm not sure it's possible to send a mail to mailing list when one has > opted‑out > > It isn’t possible, on purpose. That’s one of the anti-spam features > associated with email: you’re forced to identify yourself in a way that > lets the list manager cut you off if you’re determined to be a spammer. > Anonymity is the root of much evil. > > (Now, now, don’t get all civil libertarian on me. I’m down with anonymity > in principle. It just isn’t appropriate for all…ahem, forums of > discussion.) > > Do you propose that Fossil reinvent distributed identity management, SPF, > RBL, etc. just to keep spam out of these hypothetical web forums? > > > Another alternative beside of forums, is news-groups. And there is a > well known web interface for that, which is Google Groups, and it does not > require self‑hosting. > > That’s an acceptable solution if your only problem is that the > communications don’t happen in a web browser. It doesn’t solve: > > 1. Isn’t built into Fossil. (Which is what I thought the original > complaint was above.) > > 2. Doesn’t allow anonymous posting. (Need a Google account or an account > with another Usenet provider. And the last time I used Usenet, that > identifier was an email address anyway!) > > 3. Doesn’t let you ignore threads. (Other Usenet clients do, but then it > isn’t in a browser again, which I suspect is the real problem a lot of > people have with mailing lists.) > > 4. Isn’t the cool new spiffy, like the guy a week or so ago who wanted > Fossil to move discussions to Telegram because shiny. > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
