Rens Oliemans <[email protected]> writes: Sorry for the late reply. The work travel schedule and volume of emails have been overwhelming in recent weeks.
> Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > >> LGTM. >> I tried to use the new code, and noticed that stackoverflow links are still >> left intact. > > Thanks, I forgot about stackoverflow. Added in the attached patch. We now > replace the following four services, is that right? > > - reddit > - github > - youtube > - stackoverflow Yes. > Worg also links to various tweets (org-quotes.org), but always includes the > full tweet text so I'm not sure if a redirect would add too much here. Agree. > Note three things about the SO redirection to AnonymousOverflow: > > 1. The current top listed instance is down, I created an issue at > https://github.com/httpjamesm/AnonymousOverflow/issues/185 to keep the > instance list up-to-date. I see that there is not much activity there. Combined with unreliable gothub instances, this is concerning. Maybe we need some automated checks via CI to detect which instances are down and which are working + rebuild WORG. Or maybe even get our own instances running, so that we can be sure that all the links are working. We have the donation money to rent a server. > 2. The script only converts stackoverflow.com/questions/question_id links. > Worg links to stackoverflow with the following pages: > stackoverflow.com/questions/question_id/...; > stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/org-mode; > stackoverflow.com/tags/org-mode/info; stackoverflow.com/help/; > stackoverflow.com/users/...; I think at least some of them can be safely replaced with alternative links that can be at least opened in eww (without javascript). For example, stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/org-mode can be safely replaced by even reddit that can render without js (old.reddit). > 3. The script ignores *.stackexchange.com. Adding this is not too much effort, > but these links do not exist in Worg so I've ignored it (for now?). I think a useful thing to do infrastructure-wise could be allowing stub link matchers without implementing the replacement js-free service that will do nothing but signal an error when such links are encountered. That way, we will catch stackexchange (or other similar) links if they try to slip through. Not a requirement. >> Also, looks like gothub instances are not up-to-date. >> Reported https://codeberg.org/LibRedirect/instances/issues/40, but we >> may need some way to check that things are working, so that we have >> heads up and report to libredirect as needed. Maybe some additional >> check that an URL is live at the time is publishing. > > I believe that LibRedirect considers it not their responsibility to check > whether instances are working, see > https://github.com/libredirect/instances/issues/56 and > https://libredirect.github.io/faq.html#where_the_hell_are_those_instances_coming_from. Right. I realized that much after they replied. > Nonetheless, creating an issue is a good idea, because the gothub list of > instances at > https://codeberg.org/gothub/gothub-instances/src/branch/master/instances.json > differs in content, so the LibRedirect script does seems to fail. It is updated as of now. That said, the original gothub-instances are itself not up to date. See the above about checks for instance status / running our own. >> This is a fine approach. >> Another way is sending patch + a diff. >> Or just a diff followed by full patch after discussion finishes. >> Or creating a branch on public repo or in worg itself and working from there. > > OK, I've attached a patch that includes only my change, is that sufficient? LGTM. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
