https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2023-March/039215.html I've sent this today to clarify the situation around the PR (or complicate it rather?)
pep.
I wouldn't merge it as is but I guess I need a decision to make the new PR
MattJ
If the only blocking question now is about how to treat "updates", I doubt we'll make more progress than last time I brought it up on the list
pep.
Someone makes an executive decision?
pep.
pretty plz
MattJ
The executive decision was made in favour of (2)
MattJ
I don't want to say it was by me, because I'm the author of an implementation that already does it that way
pep.
MattJ, what was the informational text you wanted to get in, regarding pubsub and key/value store
MattJ
But Ralph probably has the most implementation experience of XEP-0060 out of anyone in the community, and he also says (2)
pep.
Can you propose wording and a place for me to add it? Or a patch
MattJ
Shall do that now
pep.
I guess I'll make a new PR and remove this one, so that council can vote on the new one next week if they want more time
pep.
And I'll include wording to define "overwrite"
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
MattJ
First stab at it: https://pad.nixnet.services/DoGOIieYRuSQvYzK_xIKAw
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
vaulorhas left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
pep.
Looks good to me. You also define the order in there, so there's only a few things for me to do
pep.
That can go into implementation notes?
sonnyhas left
MattJ
It would be good to at least also clarify the couple of places it says "overwrite" too