> Presumably, with this approach, if an older client overwrites the new field,
> then nothing bad happens. And we eventually converge on everyone supporting
> the new field as clients upgrade.
Old clients will do one of three things:
1. Upload a new record that’s missing fields. New clients wil
On Oct 13, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Richard Newman wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> 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.
>
> The lac
> This idea sounds great to me, but staffing levels and back logs might still
> make this tricky for the desktop team in the short term. The sync migration
> project is probably considered a higher priority and at the moment I'm
> struggling to get even bug-fixes on our iterations.
Most of the
On 14/10/2014 5:34 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
On 2014-10-13, 8:28 AM, Richard Newman wrote:
Neither of these are realistic given staffing levels and our project
back logs. Incremental record changes, ahoy!
This idea sounds great to me, but staffing levels and back logs might
still make this
Just to flesh these points out a little for the record:
> One idea we could do is partition our datatypes. We could turn off and leave
> behind an old collection type (say tabs) and only sync a new replacement
> collection type (tabs2 or newtabs).
This is actually pretty much what bumping a c
On 2014-10-13, 8:28 AM, Richard Newman wrote:
Hello folks,
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.
The lack of some of this inform
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-
Hello folks,
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.
The lack of some of this information — more info about clients (platform?),
ab
8 matches
Mail list logo
