Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSC2674: Event Relationships #2674

Merged
merged 46 commits into from
Nov 23, 2021

Conversation

uhoreg
Copy link
Member

@uhoreg uhoreg commented Jul 7, 2020

Rendered

Replaces #1849 along with #2675, #2676, and #2677

New FCP: #2674 (comment)

Copy link
Member Author

@uhoreg uhoreg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Transfer comments from 1849

proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@uhoreg uhoreg changed the title MSCxxxx: Event Relationships MSC2674: Event Relationships Jul 7, 2020
@uhoreg uhoreg marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2020 21:34
@uhoreg uhoreg added kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success proposal A matrix spec change proposal proposal-in-review labels Jul 7, 2020
@turt2live turt2live self-requested a review July 20, 2020 21:29
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

@kevincox kevincox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that we should support multiple relations, both of the same type and of differing types.

proposals/2674-event-relationships.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@richvdh richvdh added this to Awaiting SCT input in Spec Core Team Backlog via automation Jun 1, 2021
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Awaiting SCT input to Temp column 001 in Spec Core Team Backlog Jun 8, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Jun 8, 2021
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Nov 23, 2021

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@mscbot mscbot added finished-final-comment-period and removed disposition-merge final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. labels Nov 23, 2021
@turt2live turt2live merged commit c8e8b75 into matrix-org:old_master Nov 23, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec and removed finished-final-comment-period labels Nov 23, 2021
@turt2live turt2live moved this from In FCP to Done to some definition in Spec Core Team Backlog Nov 23, 2021
turt2live added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2021
* initial version of event relationship MSC

* fix MSC numbers

* clarifications

* mention multiple relations per event might be useful, but postpone for a future MSC

* mention MSC 3051 for proposed multiple relations

* remove send_relation endpoint

* move e2ee section under sending relations

* mention limitation of leaving server-side aggregations out for now

* remove mentions of m.reference, we'll sort that out in another MSC

* whitespace

* argument why m.relates_to should be preserved by redactions more general

but still give example of redacted edits

* deal with this in the comments

* clarify the conditions to meet for a relation

* mention specifically that this does not replace replies (yet)

* clarify how general rel_types should be

* clarify that gaps may cause clients to be unaware of some relations

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: DeepBlueV7.X <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: DeepBlueV7.X <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>

* make wording clearer and move to bottom of section

* remove this as references are not defined here anymore

* clearer wording

* move edge cases to other relevant mscs

* clarify that a goal of sticking to this format is backwards compat.

* mention MSC 3267, to which m.reference has been extracted

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: Hubert Chathi <hubert@uhoreg.ca>

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: Hubert Chathi <hubert@uhoreg.ca>

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: Matthew Hodgson <matthew@arasphere.net>

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: Matthew Hodgson <matthew@arasphere.net>

* Update proposals/2674-event-relationships.md

Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <travpc@gmail.com>

* wrap lines

* better wording

* this is singular, really

* add example of event shape

* specify how invalid relations should be treated by the redaction algorithm

* fix typo

* split up redactions changes in separate MSC

* also add new msc to introduction

* reword why not adopt m.in_reply_to

* remove guidelines how to pick rel_type

* mention that the target event must exist in the same room

* spell out the conscious (subject, object, verb) triple idea.

* Spelling

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

* remove paragraph saying what server should accept

* Revert "remove paragraph saying what server should accept"

This reverts commit e027133.

* further specify that a server should reject invalid relations through the cs api

* linebreak

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Bruno Windels <bruno@windels.cloud>
Co-authored-by: DeepBlueV7.X <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>
Co-authored-by: Matthew Hodgson <matthew@arasphere.net>
Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <travpc@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
@turt2live turt2live added the blocked Something needs to be done before action can be taken on this PR/issue. label Dec 31, 2021
@turt2live turt2live removed the blocked Something needs to be done before action can be taken on this PR/issue. label May 5, 2022
@turt2live turt2live self-assigned this May 5, 2022
@turt2live turt2live added this to Needs Spec PR in Matrix 1.3 hitlist via automation May 24, 2022
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Needs Spec PR to Spec PR in progress in Matrix 1.3 hitlist May 24, 2022
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Spec PR: matrix-org/matrix-spec#1062

@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec labels May 27, 2022
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Spec PR in progress to Spec PR needs review in Matrix 1.3 hitlist May 27, 2022
@turt2live turt2live added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Jun 8, 2022
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Merged 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
Archived in project
Matrix 1.3 hitlist
Merged to spec (done)
Spec Core Team Backlog
  
Done to some definition
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet