From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <e@80x24.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN:  
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
	shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F991F404;
	Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:40:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:40:12 +0000
From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org
Subject: Re: internal format (was: Relationship between public-inbox and
 ssoma?)
Message-ID: <20180315164012.GA20246@whir>
References: <m2371f9wau.fsf@gmail.com>
 <20180305020754.GA11496@dcvr>
 <jwv1sgl5php.fsf-monnier+inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <jwv1sgl5php.fsf-monnier+inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta@gnu.org>
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
> > The work-in-progress "v2" public-inbox format diverges and I
> > don't currently have plans to port ssoma to use it.  The v1
> > format will remain supported in public-inbox.
> 
> Which reminds me: do you have some document that explains the reasoning
> behind the choice of format (especially which alternatives were
> considered and dropped and why)?

v1 or v2?  Some of the reasoning for v2 was here:
  https://public-inbox.org/meta/20180209205140.GA11047@dcvr/

v1 was similar to what git did with loose objects and prevented
dupes based on Message-ID.  That worked well enough for small
non-mirror lists and wasn't designed with search (Xapian) in mind.

As for git itself: reliability, ease-of-replication, storage
efficiency.