Retire the awaynick module [$20 awarded] #387
Assignees
adam (Adam Wojcieszonek)
Clear assignees
adam (Adam Wojcieszonek)
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: adam/znc#387
Reference in new issue
Block a user
Proposal:
- Write a wiki page politely explaining why away nicks are bad. Collect ideas from:
- http://bisqwit.iki.fi/jutut/away.html
- http://sackheads.org/~bnaylor/spew/away_msgs.html
- Make the current awaynick module available somewhere
- Rename it to awaynicksarebad or something, so it won't collide later
- Reference from the awaynick module wiki page
- Cripple the awaynick module so that it still loads, but does nothing besides throwing warnings
- IRC: on load & module command, warn that the module is retired and give the wiki link
- Terminal: just in case someone runs ZNC with debug output, print a bold red warning on startup. The return message from OnLoad is not well visible, so either fix that or use CUtils::PutStatus(false, "...") directly?
--- The **[$20 bounty](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/4294383-retire-the-awaynick-module?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** on this issue has been claimed at [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).We (meaning @KindOne-) tried this in #439 and it went nowhere, unfortunately. Both sides of this issue have strong opinions. I stand with the "nuke it" faction, but expect lots of dissent on this.
Just out of interest (and sorry for necroing), but why was this Bountysource'd?
Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but it looks like something that would have been fairly simple for the ZNC team to do themselves, once a consensus had been reached by the community.
Anyone is free to set bounty on any issue they would like to see resolved. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the complexity of an issue. It's also a way to voice your opinion.
Why the rename? Why can't it just be removed from core? This causes (seemingly unnecessary) hassle for people who want to use it (and those people are already going out of their way to get it, so it's not stopping anyone).
While jpnurmi already answered I would like to add that I don't think there is necroing with issue trackers as the bug can always resurface or there are new ideas to it.
I assume that by rename you mean that it loads the simple_away module which has there always. It cannot be removed entirely, because that would make ZNC not start for the users who had it loaded previously after upgrading.
From what I have understood the module will be loaded eventually.
See also:
It seems kind of a bad way to do so when the community is so clearly divided, though. I mean, I get that your opinion was that
awaynickshould be removed, which is fine, but it seems kind of like one is putting a spanner in the works by throwing money at it instead of allowing the community to resolve its opinions itself, if you see what I mean.I think he's referring to the fact that in the ZNC core, attempting to load
awaynickautomatically loadssimple_awayinstead - if users want to use a module with that name, they have to rename it. That seems kind of unnecessary, no? IMHO it would be better to replace it with an actual module namedawaynickthat gives a warning or itself loadssimple_away- which is exactly what there is.Yes, this. If I upgrade and put the old awaynick module in there, as far as I can tell, it won't be loaded, since the "awaynick" in my configs is going to just load simple_away instead.
Edit: Ok, after having another look at the patch, I understand what's going on now.
As far as I can tell, simple_away is loaded only if awaynick fails to load. Your self-built ~/.znc/modules/awaynick.so takes precedence over the deprecated one in the installation dir.
You lost me :)
@jpnurmi Yeah, I missed that first time around but realised 15 minutes ago. Thanks though.