cleanup interprotocol bridges #96
No reviewers
Labels
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: LibertaCasa/salt#96
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "cfg_matterbridge"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
updating sshchat label
Remote nick formatting fixes
Remove some redundant linkages
Reroute bridges
Signed-off-by: Pratyush Desai pratyush.desai@liberta.casa
Hopefully those
RemoteNickFormat
s work as intended. There’s no way all these changes work properly.Some of these lines are obvious, others would be nice to have an explanation for. Though even the obvious ones might be not so obvious some years down the line.
@ -85,4 +80,3 @@
petals:
irc.libertacasa: '#Petals'
telegram.libertacasa: '-1001971550949'
keytomb:
Same here.
awe
@ -79,3 +77,3 @@
irc.libertacasa: '#chat'
discord.23: chat
xmpp.libertacasa: chat
dota:
I presume it’s something stale.
yeah
@ -73,4 +73,3 @@
info:
irc.libertacasa: '#libcasa.info'
xmpp.libertacasa: libcasa.info
#telegram.libertacasa: '-1001518274267'
What happened to this? Would be cool to have an explanation as well.
done
@ -40,3 +40,3 @@
telegram.libertacasa:
Token: ${'secret_matterbridge:general:accounts:telegram.libertacasa:Token'}
RemoteNickFormat: '<{NICK}> '
RemoteNickFormat: '[{PROTOCOL}] <{NICK}> '
Not sure how that will look like in Telepound, but I assume you evaluated it.
No lol. Hmm it needs something though. I feel like we had tried it and it didn’t work and so we let it go.
Is there a way to test it without doing the whole procedure and applying the state all over again.
In production? Not really .. only if you had some local setup, but there you could probably not use the same Telegram channels.
@ -70,24 +69,17 @@ profile:
irc.libertacasa: '#lucy'
xmpp.libertacasa: lucy
telegram.libertacasa: '-1001795702961'
sshchat.Psyched: sshchat
I get this and agree with it, but would have be cool to have an explanation in the commit message.
I had written it but then removed it :( as I felt “rerouting bridges” encompassed that already.
Well I can tell from the diff that you’re “rerouting bridges”, but I can’t tell why you’re doing so. :-)
Thank you!
Some bureaucratic nitpicks, otherwise ok.
4e8bf773a6
to9db1ae0d4b
9db1ae0d4b
to00e7832e9d
gonna yolo the tg remotenickformat stuff.
I pretend that comment doesn’t exist
(but on a more serious note, it looks at least technically correct)