Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again

[t3sserakt]

On 13.11.20 12:36, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> On 11/13/20 12:15 AM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> tl;dr:
>> - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
>> gtk/secushare again?
> gtk+: I'm still undecided ;-).
>
> Secushare: it's been unmaintained for a while, and unless someone else
> steps up to actually get it working and properly maintain the code
> through API changes, I am not really willing to put in the effort to
> keep tons of code compiling that so far adds zero value.
+1
>> - Is "messenger" a part of "secushare"?
> That's a political question for those who claim to speak for "secushare"
> ;-).

Not only for those claiming to speak for "secushare", but also for
Jacki. At the moment there is no activity in the secushare project.
Jacki started his Cadet GTK Project. He might be influenced by some
ideas of people from the secushare team, but messenger is his project.
Nevertheless messenger could be part of/used by future secushare
implementations.

>> Long version:
>>
>> I was wondering how "messenger" relates to "secushare".
>> Some time ago we moved secushare and related components out of
>> gnunet.git and into an extension repository [1].
> In my view, it's a fresh attempt to build something that might be
> considered part of / become part of the secushare vision. That said, I
> think its premature given that messenger clearly is still evolving, and
> secushare remains largely vaporware
> (Secushare-people: do correct me if I am wrong here).
+1
>> I would like to take this opportunity to restart this discussion:
>> Should we move secushare back into gnunet.git? (Is the secushare team
>> even planning to maintain it?)
> That's the key point: if someone maintains it, it can come back.
There is no actual plan to maintain it. From my point of view that code
will be useful to learn from or to be used in parts for a new secushare
implementation to come, but that's it. The social layer might be an
exception, because we might reuse a lot from that layer.
>> Is messenger an alternative to secushare or should it be part of it?
>> Should we move towards a more monolithic repo in general and merge
>> secushare/gtk as well?

I think messenger is - at least in parts, but I do not know exactly,
because I did not looked into the code so far - an alternative to the
multicast layer of secushare. A multicast layer could be useful for all
kinds of applications, means it is not part of secushare, but it will
definitely be used by secushare.

Cheers

t3ss

OpenPGP_0x524982A0100F7490.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature