clarify inconsistency between README.md and mission.md #120

eclexic commented 2026年03月17日 05:59:14 +01:00

mission.md

Another selling point of Zed is "multiplayer editing" and built-in collaboration.

I don't want it. In fact, I think these are bad features to put in a code editor.

README.md

• NO PROPRIETARY "COLLABORATION"

I personally got hung up on "proprietary" in that bullet, and thought this meant direct p2p collaboration might be on the roadmap. Which I personally would like, but only sharing the text buffer... Though, I am not heart broken over it, as much as I would like it.

I also see that netcat is a requirement of the aur package, which if my memory serves correctly, is used by zed purely for the collaboration mode? I could be misremembering that, or it may have picked up new uses since I looked into it.

Would it be correct to say the statement in the mission.md is more correct?

I would suggest replacing the bullet with...
NO "COLLABORATION" MODE
if that is your intent.

Thanks for your work on this so far! I hope to be able to contribute in some way once I have more time. :-)

mission.md > Another selling point of Zed is "multiplayer editing" and built-in collaboration. > > I don't want it. In fact, I think these are bad features to put in a code editor. README.md > * NO PROPRIETARY "COLLABORATION" I personally got hung up on "proprietary" in that bullet, and thought this meant direct p2p collaboration might be on the roadmap. Which I personally would like, but only sharing the text buffer... Though, I am not heart broken over it, as much as I would like it. I also see that netcat is a requirement of the aur package, which if my memory serves correctly, is used by zed purely for the collaboration mode? I could be misremembering that, or it may have picked up new uses since I looked into it. Would it be correct to say the statement in the mission.md is more correct? I would suggest replacing the bullet with... NO "COLLABORATION" MODE if that is your intent. Thanks for your work on this so far! I hope to be able to contribute in some way once I have more time. :-)

krig commented 2026年03月17日 06:56:19 +01:00

Hi, and welcome!

I think my position has shifted slightly here. I do want to add some kind of collaborative editing mode back in. I have looked at Teamtype as a possible way to achieve that.

The feature I don’t want is integrated audio/video chat, I feel like that would add a ton of complexity and it’s not something that I personally feel belongs in the editor.

I will update the README to clarify this!

Hi, and welcome! I think my position has shifted slightly here. I do want to add some kind of collaborative editing mode back in. I have looked at Teamtype as a possible way to achieve that. The feature I don’t want is integrated audio/video chat, I feel like that would add a ton of complexity and it’s not something that I personally feel belongs in the editor. I will update the README to clarify this!

krig commented 2026年03月17日 07:27:16 +01:00

Updated the mission statement with a clarification. Also see the discussion in #17 for some thoughts on Teamtype and collaborative editing in general.

Updated the mission statement with a clarification. Also see the discussion in #17 for some thoughts on Teamtype and collaborative editing in general.

tjk commented 2026年03月17日 16:31:22 +01:00

@krig, do you have any thoughts on whether any of the existing collab code is worth keeping? I had started ripping it out before I saw that your opinion had changed somewhat. There has been some AI-generated code, so I figure it's probably best to start over regardless. Editor collaboration is a form of remote access, so the security boundary is more important than in most modules.

@krig, do you have any thoughts on whether any of the existing collab code is worth keeping? I had started ripping it out before I saw that your opinion had changed somewhat. There has been some AI-generated code, so I figure it's probably best to start over regardless. Editor collaboration is a form of remote access, so the security boundary is more important than in most modules.

krig commented 2026年03月17日 17:10:37 +01:00

@tjk Well, I think there is quite a lot of AI-generated code in the editor in general, and I don't know if my goal is as ambitious as ripping it all out eventually (even if that would be satisfying). So in that sense I am more looking to try to stabilize and fix the code as much as possible.

I am sure that there is a lot in there that is either in bad shape or not necessary for the current scope. As long as it doesn't cause trouble, I am not too bothered by it.

That said, I think any patch that removes code that has security implications or that is inscrutable and is also part of some feature that has been removed would be welcome. Like you say, if there will be some kind of collaboration feature in Gram in the future it will probably have to be a fresh start.

@tjk Well, I think there is quite a lot of AI-generated code in the editor in general, and I don't know if my goal is as ambitious as ripping it all out eventually (even if that would be satisfying). So in that sense I am more looking to try to stabilize and fix the code as much as possible. I am sure that there is a lot in there that is either in bad shape or not necessary for the current scope. As long as it doesn't cause trouble, I am not too bothered by it. That said, I think any patch that removes code that has security implications or that is inscrutable and is also part of some feature that has been removed would be welcome. Like you say, if there will be some kind of collaboration feature in Gram in the future it will probably have to be a fresh start.