Replying to Avatar DanConwayDev

2. Ah, I hadn't considered that the maintainer may want to express a view on whether contributors should use the nip05 or npub in the clone url.

I planned on it being a user preference and hadn't landed on a default for gitworkshop.dev.

Now we are on the topic of maintainers expressing a view, it's also conceivable that projects may want to suggest a generic project nip05 which may point to different maintainers over time as the project evolves.

Increasing reliance on DNS just feels a bit dirty and unsatisfactory, but I can see the easier UX.

Why don't we start off by adding basic support first, without adding anything to `30317`, and see what the feedback is like?

3. I'm not sure that we do. I've created this to demonstrate why not:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqx2ypzpgqgmmc409hm4xsdd74sf68a2uyf9pwel4g9mfdg8l5244t6x4jdqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmny9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsqgzuxrs7ewutcjhy2k5nfghp9828u4ds5s80jtt6ud55uu2t5ntfe53rrwl2

Avatar
Lez 1y ago

2. I'm fine by doing an MVP, let's not touch the 30317 for now. I think increasing UX is more important here. Especially that by the authorities taking the DNS they achieve nothing a.) it's a news flash for the project b.) somebody trusted will point a new nip05 to the project c.) educating the public it's a dependency d.) still being able to use the npub/naddr remote, which ngit could support out of the box (as all the info is cached in a checked out repo)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.