From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS376 132.204.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (pruche.dit.umontreal.ca [132.204.246.22]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3A81F404 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w2FFUs8a009532 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:30:54 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 656846048C; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:30:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: internal format (was: Relationship between public-inbox and ssoma?) Message-ID: References: <20180305020754.GA11496@dcvr> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:30:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180305020754.GA11496@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Mon, 5 Mar 2018 02:07:54 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Level: * X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 1 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 4 Rules triggered SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_S=0.9, BODY_DRUG_GAP_S=0.1, EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6243=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6243> : inlines <6491> : streams <1781472> : uri <2608716> List-Id: > 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)? Stefan