On 19 Sep 2016, at 18:09, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just
> experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving
> stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.
I think that while it’s too early
think the major difference is that there is very likely consensus that a
disclaimer should be added to Message Archiving, while I don't think that's
also true for deprecating it.
I also believe that we should do more to guide users towards the
"encouraged" protocols. We have this situation not on
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving
> stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.
What is the difference between that and just deprecating Message
Archiving? Isn't that effectively what you're doi
On 19 September 2016 at 18:09, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just
> experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving
> stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.
Agree. Also there are things t
I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just
experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving
stating that new installations should consider MAM instead.
- Florian
On Sep 19, 2016 18:51, "Sam Whited" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was looking at an i
