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

Set custom power_levels on room creation #503

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

erdnaxeli
Copy link

@erdnaxeli erdnaxeli commented Sep 25, 2017

An user can already set custom level for IRC modes. The idea of this PR is to allow to set also custom privilege levels needed to configure the room (Matrix side).

My first need was to be able to let the matrix users who are op on IRC set the history visibility, but I added some other parameters (avatar, name, canonical alias, ...).

Edit: currently this PR only set power levels on room creation, but I would like to set them on reconnection, to support config changes. Any advices on how to do this?

@kegsay
Copy link
Member

kegsay commented Sep 25, 2017

What's the use case for this?

@erdnaxeli
Copy link
Author

Let Matrix users who are op on IRC set the history visibility, mainly. And have more precision (for +h, +o, +a, +q).

@kegsay
Copy link
Member

kegsay commented Sep 26, 2017

Can't they do this already via plumbing?

@erdnaxeli
Copy link
Author

erdnaxeli commented Sep 27, 2017 via email

@kegsay
Copy link
Member

kegsay commented Sep 27, 2017

Hmm, the difference is that plumbed rooms allow configuration on a per-channel basis, whereas this PR applies on a per-bridge basis. Configuration of sensitive things like message history really should be a per-channel thing, so the idea of adding a per-bridge configuration isn't too appetising.

That being said, flexibility is always a good thing, and there may be certain use cases where this makes sense e.g. private IRC networks. I'll have a look at this in detail at some point.

@erdnaxeli
Copy link
Author

erdnaxeli commented Sep 28, 2017 via email

@Mikaela Mikaela mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2018
@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, since over overhaul changes have been applied it's going to be a lot of work to incorporate this change into the existing codebase. It's also been a while, so rather than letting this sit I am going to close it. Feel free to re-open a new PR against the new codebase if you wish.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants