Before launching the feature I checked with the mod of that community to see if they were ok with it. We agreed to try it and see if it caused any problems. If it does I’ll point the code at a different community instead, possibly a PieFed one.
If that is still a problem then I’ll code something to spread communities to other instances using an API but that seems like a lot more work.
Wouldn’t you agree that hardcoding one specific community to provide a feature to “try it and see it causes any problems” is yolo’ing?
I’ll code something to spread communities to other instances using an API but that seems like a lot more work.
In my view, the “proper” solution to this (and that would fit right into ActivityPub) would be simply to let the actor that represents the server to post “as:Create” for any new communities that are created and then let the other software follow these if they are interested.
It certainly would be a lot more work and it would still require others to write code on their end to look for this information, but seems like the only implementation that would seem like just another ad-hoc hack.
No and I reject your characterization of the situation.
Every feature is a tradeoff between risk, effort, benefits for various stakeholders. I do my best to balance those and am always listening to feedback.
pay me.
You think that if I paid you to remove features, you’d do it?
No, but if I was paid it wouldn’t be a hobby.
Before launching the feature I checked with the mod of that community to see if they were ok with it. We agreed to try it and see if it caused any problems. If it does I’ll point the code at a different community instead, possibly a PieFed one.
If that is still a problem then I’ll code something to spread communities to other instances using an API but that seems like a lot more work.
Wouldn’t you agree that hardcoding one specific community to provide a feature to “try it and see it causes any problems” is yolo’ing?
In my view, the “proper” solution to this (and that would fit right into ActivityPub) would be simply to let the actor that represents the server to post “as:Create” for any new communities that are created and then let the other software follow these if they are interested.
It certainly would be a lot more work and it would still require others to write code on their end to look for this information, but seems like the only implementation that would seem like just another ad-hoc hack.
No and I reject your characterization of the situation.
Every feature is a tradeoff between risk, effort, benefits for various stakeholders. I do my best to balance those and am always listening to feedback.