From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108681F9FD for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id a9so10922360qkn.13 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:33:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=oJRbL4DdnuagI+f1Hrnc7B8drJ4j39z6zzjlc6FftO0=; b=hInnqyVVJwC73cIRbDuwtZPyAqP6qq4ZtV4g65koE4+NPU7Lqs0xhRzBkDj2plstjY 9NT0DRXOBkCEFnzuzHxBhL9XFXIO453ED4g+lzBRaodv7cdJGlVcXPB6ix7PUuEeN6r1 bZVDZe/8HqHk7/ZP8XLWwiyYEWfdtPXfHjQIs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=oJRbL4DdnuagI+f1Hrnc7B8drJ4j39z6zzjlc6FftO0=; b=e8nZJSqp6nqkEsiQGe41qTQ5u4tIv2yn9xbnDrnwiRAaNv9k0KpEv04huiT2rYOjUO fs0oCTqlBqEuNItgOy95h/pMjRNqkXndgp3PC8et+D3NQEJ9D1FMGHqFMj/EoWAQ4+rq 8STVBVa+WnPunJteYa8ozGKilkN/jKtfHL0ahQD/V47ADpyN+nRfFM8AjB8GaGQ+n0hr 2RTXfq4BpnlIb2jr0OQRlV0//caRIAnY43HztRlEUnxLPYpAVLeLFHWQfMGYfrSEQz3v PuEJDsWKN9e8oayw8boAapzQIfQz53d5a2hO8LMzBnvWFKEexvg/J3jbHL2+eakuEPUO aTzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530CQMJPa1gCLlpEmJRWa7uyOrPwzefobO140nMgXm8gZTtMr5Hf DDfm/G/6kmozYqruYBt/ED40Rg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydI7xkWSp3mT5G8NVXaO5s3Tp/vQwIBtu3gd78yKl6GBcSyLzqKcKnkccOQlo9mp4CRaY6LA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a643:: with SMTP id p64mr6517043qke.276.1615239214811; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:33:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from chatter.i7.local ([89.36.78.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y8sm3876934qtn.68.2021.03.08.13.33.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:33:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:33:32 -0500 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: release timelines (-extindex, JMAP, lei) Message-ID: <20210308213332.w3aoum7nnsri5zh3@chatter.i7.local> Mail-Followup-To: Eric Wong , meta@public-inbox.org References: <20210305222019.GB1010@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210305222019.GB1010@dcvr> List-Id: On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 10:20:19PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > So I think the -extindex stuff might be stable and suitable for > general consumption. The HTML WWW UI around -extindex has some > rough edges but nothing that would take too much effort to fix. \o/ > But I'm deeply worried about unleashing a new on-disk format > that's insufficient and being stuck supporting it forever > (as I am with v1 inboxes)... > > * JMAP is going to be a more effort, but I think our current > on-disk data model is OK or at least extensible enough for it. > I might delay JMAP until 1.8. > > JMAP will be significantly less effort than inventing something > new (and one-off) with GraphQL or REST. And it would be less > effort for client authors, as well; since client code can be > used for non-public-inbox servers, too. I don't really have any specific opinion on this matter. I don't really know of any other provider outside of Fastmail that uses JMAP, but it *is* a published IETF standard around RFC2822 messages, so it makes sense to use it for this purpose. > * lei saved searches can probably done quick for 1.7, > but without full keywords support for externals... I was wondering if lei should be part of the same suite as public-inbox proper as opposed to a standalone (or interdependent) client tool. Unless I'm mistaken, someone running a public-inbox origin or mirror server wouldn't necessarily be an active lei user. Decoupling them from each-other would allow different release cadence, no? > In any case, I need to take a few days away to clear my head. Please take care! Thanks for your effort on this project. Best, -K