Conversation

Notices

1. NEETzsche (neetzsche@iddqd.social)'s status on Saturday, 11-Nov-2023 14:21:02 JST NEETzsche

   • Christi Junior
   • LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿
   • NEETzsche
   • :archlinux: :nyarch: :verified:

   @LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @CumskinFoidPuncher69420 I just wanted to make free software

   • NEETzsche (neetzsche@iddqd.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 16:55:56 JST NEETzsche

     in reply to

     • Christi Junior
     • LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿
     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • The Problem
     • :archlinux: :nyarch: :verified:

     They didn’t even mention “security risks,” assuming there even are any. There are no “security risks” to delivering a little bit of JSON from a scrobbles table that only has text in it, and there definitely aren’t any new “security risks” considering this exact content can be retrieved from another endpoint.

   • The Problem (marine@breastmilk.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 16:55:57 JST The Problem

     in reply to

     • Christi Junior
     • LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿
     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • :archlinux: :nyarch: :verified:

     @NEETzsche @ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @lewdthewides @hj

     so basically we’re not getting scrobbling because @lanodan doesn’t like you because you’re you which is disappointing at a baseline. Why are we removing features when the point is to be adding them. If we’re worried about ‘security risks’, at that point, none of us should even be allowed to post anything but text since any attachment can also attack security vulnerabilities (ie; the way that Claire from Chudbuds got hacked via a minecraft mod pack).

   • NEETzsche (neetzsche@iddqd.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 16:56:33 JST NEETzsche

     in reply to

     • Christi Junior
     • LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿
     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • The Problem
     • :archlinux: :nyarch: :verified:

     Here’s the goalpost for technical basis to reject this PR. It must meet ALL of the requirements:

     • It must introduce a bug that wasn’t already there
     • It can’t be from data errors created by another endpoint
     • The same complaint can’t be issued against any other endpoints already in the codebase, example: if the complaint is that you can inundate the scrobbles endpoint, then the same complaint can be made about the statuses endpoint, making this an invalid basis for rejection
     • It must reproducible

     I’m not setting this goalpost because I think it will be met, I’m setting it because I want to give those who aren’t technical a baseline for evaluation here. If ANY of these requirements aren’t met, we can conclude that it’s not about any technical issue. It’s about who made the PR.

      likes this.