Sent from Mobile. On Jul 27, 2013, at 7:17, Mark Finkle <[email protected]> wrote:
------------------------------ There is so much wrong with your analysis that I don't know where to start. Fortunately, its also so far out of scope that I don't have to. Your perspective is appreciated, but we have made certain decisions at this point, and we will not revisit them. Until we get different guidance, the use cases are what they are, and the goal of getting an MVP to market is set. If you disagree with that strategy, we will have to agree to disagree, but I will still need your full support with implementing it. If you would like to help with resolving remaining technical detail issues, please do so by listing concrete, relevant, realistic use cases. General statements of disagreement are not useful. Be careful falling back on the high-level MVP as a crutch to avoid making hard decisions. The MVP does not contain low level details on consistency and conflict resolution. It shouldn't. The MVP does have a section on "Performance and Stability" and that section does make some statements about users "expecting zero data loss." Zero data loss is not zero data loss. A zero data loss service cannot be built. Such technology simply doesn't exist. We need enough 9s to appear to the user to not lose data. If data loss is so rare that other events such as "meteor strike" are more frequent, there is no point in engineering for those cases. Lets get concrete cases, we can fairly easily estimate frequency, and then we know what we actually have to handle. Andreas I agree with you about getting a list of concrete failure cases. I think that work has started. I also have no desire to see history repeated. We'll get links to the success and failure cases available as soon as they start appearing.
_______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
