On 14/10/2014 2:28 AM, Richard Newman wrote:
> As most of you know, we didn’t have time to rev the Sync storage format when
> we shipped 1.5.
> There are a swath of improvements that we wish we had[1], were planning for
> Sync 2.0, but never got to ship.
>
> So I propose a very incremental, far-from-perfect step: make such changes
> without bumping a version, ensuring that clients don’t rely on the presence
> of those fields. We’d quietly start putting timestamps in password records,
> and platform annotations in client records, document the hell out of it, and
> do the best we can.
>
> Who is for, and who is against?
This sounds sensible to me.
AFAICT our long-term strategy (inasmuch as we have any semblance of such
a thing) will be to build out data-type-specific services to replace
generic syncing stuff - examples being the reading list service and the
proposed "password manager in the cloud".
If so, then a short-term strategy of incremental tweaks to sync data
seems like a nice complement, for data types that will not get
specialized "X in the cloud" treatment anytime soon.
Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Sync-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
