-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 379
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MSC2844: Global version number for the whole spec #2844
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall I think this is a great change, which will not only encourage more frequent releases, but also simplify discussion of the Matrix spec in general. I thought your points were well thought out and I agree on the whole.
I have a few questions, suggestions and clarifications below, but otherwise this seems sane.
Co-authored-by: Andrew Morgan <1342360+anoadragon453@users.noreply.github.com>
All the initial feedback has been addressed, and this seems to be getting supportive comments out of band. Per the MSC, this has a rudimentary implementation at https://adoring-einstein-5ea514.netlify.app/ (see "releases" dropdown in the top right) to prove that the website component works. I don't think it's practical to have an implementation proof of the remainder of the MSC - it'll have to be explored and analyzed in practice if this MSC is to be accepted. As such, @mscbot fcp merge |
Team member @turt2live has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people: Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and there are no outstanding concerns), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for information about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do not forget the obligatory XKCD reference about standards
because there's no relevant specification document to link to. Even if there was, it would appear | ||
as though we were encouraging the idea of forking a specification as a specification ourselves, | ||
which may be confusing if not sending the wrong message entirely. Though the system proposed here |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Next steps on this, while I remember:
|
Spec PRs:
I don't believe there's anything else remaining on this MSC to cover. |
Merged 🎉 |
The author does not recommend that this MSC be implemented prior to it landing due to the complexity | ||
involved as well as the behavioural changes not being possible to implement. However, if an implementation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might make sense to require an implementation even for changes like this in the future, because such large changes can always break (maybe badly written) clients in new and exciting ways: Nheko-Reborn/nheko#957
For the same reason web clients, like Firefox and Chrome, take adding even a single digit to their version number very seriously: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2022/02/version-100-in-chrome-and-firefox/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fwiw, the belief was that through several blog posts, notifying clients specifically, and general spec activity folks would be aware of this happening to make the required changes.
Even with an implementation, I don't believe it would have caught your specific failure mode.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, I did not know that someone added validation code for that 5 years ago. I didn't even know about Matrix at the time. Having a server that exports the new version and testing clients against it sounds not that unreasonable and because of how big and varied the WWW has become, browsers actually go through the effort to do that. Since Matrix is growing too, if there is ever a version format change again (which is very unlikely), it probably makes sense to go with a similar approach and actually test if anything expects the format not to change. Testing always trumps just reading about it and guessing if it will break anything. Anyway, this is not a complaint, just something I thought I might notify people about and which might make sense to keep in mind for the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The spec doesn't allow for experimental versions in that field, and even if it did I don't think people would be aware of a server which had the support if they weren't aware of other aspects.
Implementation and testing is always better, yes, but I don't believe it'd fix the particular problem case raised here. It's worth noting for the future though.
Rendered