On Oct 13, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Richard Newman <rnew...@mozilla.com> 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 information — more info about clients (platform?), > about history (visited on desktop or mobile?), about passwords (when was it > last changed?) — is really starting to hamper the experiences we can build in > our clients. > > Switching to a new format is difficult, because clients don’t have any logic > to smoothly manage the transition. (We held off on minor version bumps for > four years for this reason.) > > But *most* clients are relatively up-to-date, and *many* changes can be > phrased in a way that makes them backwardly compatible — e.g., adding an > additional field to a record type[2]. > > 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. > 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. If so, SGTM. -chirs > Who is for, and who is against? > > What are our other options? > > Your input is most welcome. > > Thanks, > > -Richard > > [1] <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745408> > [2] <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555755> > _______________________________________________ > Sync-dev mailing list > Sync-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev _______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list Sync-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
