Le 17 avr. 2014 00:27, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <<a href="mailto:dkg@fifthhorseman.net">dkg@fifthhorseman.net</a>> a écrit : > > On 04/16/2014 06:19 PM, Geoffroy Couprie wrote: > > A git-like scheme with an elected master could make the transcript totally > > ordered. Basically, all the peers would receive the messages and still keep > > them in an unstaged area, partially ordered so still useful for the UI. > > Then the master would chime in and provide the definite message order, > > kind of like a merge in git. The peers then reorder their transcript > > accordingly. > > a merge in git does not produce a total order; i don't think this > proposal will work the way you think. How so? In that scheme, the master defines clearly the order (even if it is not the absolutely exact time based order). > > I don't think a partial order is a bad thing, though. a partial order > reflects the actual state of a distributed conversation; there's a > reason that mail user agents have traditionally offered a threaded view. The point is to get clients to agree on a transcript. Reflecting that transcript in the UI would be confusing since it would incur reodering. There could be a way to alert the user, though. > > --dkg >