On 25 Jun 2015, at 11:11, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > As I understand this MUC2 should not rely replace the current MUC but provide > an alternative.
Not really, the aim is to fix the issues MUC has, and produce something better that can be used in its place in the future. > Someone who needs the full IRC-like feature set (large groups mostly with > people you don't know personally) can still use MUC1. Well, they can’t, because that’s one of the things that MUC1 scales quite badly at, with all the presences and traffic at login. Fixing that in MUC2 would be good. > Yes. Plus that gives us the ability to not have private messages which are > always a mess (carbons) - not sure if this is what you meant by addressing > messes. One of several things, yes. /K
