-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
Add cross-signing labs flag to develop and document #11408
Conversation
## Cross-signing (`feature_cross_signing`) | ||
|
||
Cross-signing ([MSC1756](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1756)) | ||
improves the device verification experience by allowing you to verify a user |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
minor nit: we should probably humanize this doc a bit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah... I haven't been sure what the doc's goal is entirely I guess... Do we want to offer a very quick setting name to one sentence summary for very slightly more understanding, or is it meant to properly explain the feature?
If it's meant to properly explain the feature, then maybe it should live somewhere else so that we don't just delete the documentation when the flag goes away.
Many similar sounding questions ensue...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe it was originally added as a way for riot admins to know what the flags are so they can pick and choose which ones they want. In practice I think it's become a bunch of helpful headers (feature name + flag) with some not-as-helpful longer form text. Maybe we just convert it to a list?
I do see some value in having a description here, but I'm not sure what the description should be. It definitely shouldn't be an exhaustive description of the feature because that's best served elsewhere (such as in user guides we don't have). It could be a high level overview of what to expect by turning it on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm yeah, some small description does seem helpful to have outside of the app UI for configuration, archaeology, etc. but also unsure of the right balance.
Added a retro item for this; I'll merge this text for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this side lgtm
Config deployed to develop. |
Part of #11407