Bot mode (+B) #439
Bot mode (+B) #439
Conversation
|
LGTM. |
|
Don't see a strong reason for the draft/ to be skipped here. |
|
Referring to the tag specifically. The other stuff is already out there in the wild. |
|
Also, mention that server mustn't/shouldn't send a value to the tag, but clients should ignore the value if any. (same reasons as usual) |
|
It might be a good idea to require the WHO flag to be the same as the value specified in the BOT isupport token? That way if a server implementation is already using |
|
Alright, will change it to |
Suggested by Sadie, conforms with all server implementations.
We couldn't squeak it past the regulators ; - ; qq.
|
I'd be interested in another few devs sanity-checking/commenting on the bdf5f5a change, but yeah I'm pretty satisfied with this now after the changes. |
It is enabld by default in order to be a good netizen, but can be overridden by admins if needed. References: * * ircv3/ircv3-specifications#439
|
Is there anything blocking this? |
|
LGTM |
Implement the new bot mode spec: ircv3/ircv3-specifications#439
|
Let's take a census of implementations so we can ratify this? It sounds like this has at least two server implementations (Ergo, Inspircd) and at least two client implementations (Limnoria, Bobbit). |
|
Limnoria sets the bot mode, and IRCCloud uses the bot tag. According to https://ircv3.net/software/clients.html , BitBot doesn't set the mode. |
This specification defines the Bot mode, ISUPPORT token and WHO flags which are already in use by a number of IRC servers. It also defines the
bottag, which is in use as a vendor tag by InspIRCd right now (asinspircd.org/bot).Short, sweet, simple. Mostly explains existing behaviour apart from that
bottag, and I don't really feel like it's necessary to go through the wholedraft/prefix for six months stage for something which is a simple tag like this.Discussion happened in ircv3/ircv3-ideas#43 and servers implemented and converged on this behaviour (apart from the tag) during that discussion.