Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Instead, we will have to rely on your centralized, non-distributed > > >> service... > > > > > > I'm curious how you came to believe that, since that's the > > > opposite of what public-inbox has always been intended to be. > > > > I think the (mis)perception comes from the fact that the website and > > the newsfeed you give are both too easy to use and directly attract > > end users, instead of enticing them to keep their own mirrors for > > offline use. > > > > Thanks for injecting dose of sanity. > > Maybe your dose of sanity can inject a statement about the case when > public-inbox.org/git differs from a mirror, and not in a > fast-forwardable way? What is the authoritative source of truth, then? Why does authoritative source of truth matter? My anti-authoritarian ethos is what drew me to DVCS in the first place. If senders want to attest to the integrity of their messages; they can sign, and/or publish a copy/log of their sent messages on their homepage/social media/whatever. That's up to THEM, not anybody else. If somebody wants to fork public-inbox.org/git and run public-inbox-watch from their own Maildir, they're more than welcome to. If somebody wants to write their own importers since they don't like the code I write, they are more than welcome to. There's already mail-archive.com, marc.info, news.gmane.org (which public-inbox.org/git forked from) and some others. Going farther, if people want to fork entire mailing lists and communities, they should be able to do so. I don't like mail subscriber lists being centralized on any host, either. I have never, ever asked anybody to trust me or public-inbox; in fact, I've stated the opposite and will continue to do so.
