Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 11, 2023. It is now read-only.

Adding meeting notes for 2018-11-26 #3

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2018
Merged

Conversation

vmx
Copy link
Member

@vmx vmx commented Nov 26, 2018

No description provided.

@ghost ghost assigned vmx Nov 26, 2018
@ghost ghost added the in progress label Nov 26, 2018


@daviddias
- Why is unixfsv2 dragging? Why are so many people assigned?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There was a question on the call on "what does it mean that we have multiple people assigned". This was what I was seeing:

In IPLD OKRs

image

In JS IPFS OKRs

image

//cc @mikeal @vmx @achingbrain @warpfork @Stebalien

Copy link

@Stebalien Stebalien Dec 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree there needs to be precisely one owner. This clearly isn't working.

Copy link
Contributor

@mikeal mikeal Dec 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the problem with having different people assigned to the spec and the implementation in each language? At the very least we should expect that the implementation in each language would have different assignees.

BTW, the draft spec has landed (not 100% finished but there are additional threads about those issues) and a standalone JS implementation has been updated to the latest spec.

Update: sorry, I didn't see that very tiny screengrab from JS IPFS OKR's. Not sure why @achingbrain was assigned that but you can mark it as complete next week when the directory PR lands (it's currently just waiting for any final objections).

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The issue is that having multiple people ultimately responsible for the same task diffuses responsibility. Nobody knows who's actually responsible for what so everyone works on things they know they're solely responsible for.

Really, we should probably have "owner" and "assigned".

This clearly isn't working.

This was too harsh. You're right, progress is being made. At the end of the day, I think the correct assignment here is:

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not involved that much as I didn't really see the need so far. I trust @mikeal @warpfork and @achingbrain enough that they'll make the right decisions :)


@daviddias
- Why is unixfsv2 dragging? Why are so many people assigned?
- IPLD when it started had a lot of interest in suggestions from contributors. We should go back and take a look at some of the previous ideas and issues and see how relevant they are, so can loop these contributors and ideas back in.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added multiple references to ipld/ipld#56


@mikeal There is no canonical format for IPLD nodes. Converting between JSON-LD and the CBOR equivalents is managed by the developers. --@mikeal did I get this right?

@daviddias There is a lot of conversation about the IPLD DAG HTTP/RPC API https://github.com/ipfs/interface-ipfs-core/issues/81#issuecomment-277271941. DAG CBOR has less defined structure then the older Protbuf implementation, so there are some things to still work out.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Stebalien when you have a moment, please review https://github.com/ipfs/interface-ipfs-core/issues/81#issuecomment-277271941. I believe it is the same thing you were proposing, just that you were proposing to encapsulate everything in a JSON object and that comment is proposing to pass that information through args or headers.

- @stebalien we can't currently just send raw data because we can't send metadata in headers (not supported by our HTTP/RPC API). JSON makes this easier though.

@warpfork it would be nice to have more people dedicated to IPLD, especially since there is insufficient people in Go land to review @warpfork's code.
- @daviddias utilizing older Git issues and publishing specs will help get people involved in reviewing code.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@warpfork check in and invite everyone from ipld/ipld#56 and the previous IPLD deep dives ipfs/team-mgmt#484

I'm sure multiple people will be delighted to learn that IPLD is becoming its full org with a fully dedicated team :)

//cc @nicola, @lgierth, @hermanjunge, @Kubuxu, @pgte, @wanderer, @kumavis, @jonchoi, @jonnycrunch, @b5, @mildred, @davidar, @davidad, @krl et al :D

- @bigs
- @stebalien
- @vmx
- **Recording:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxoQQnhmD4
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for uploading the recording. I created a playlist with all the IPLD Calls to make them easy to find:

Playlist url https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=103DT-im1_M&list=PLuhRWgmPaHtRfR6VhISbSiPJ87rsN3Pb9

@vmx vmx merged commit 7efd8df into initial-setup Dec 3, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the in progress label Dec 3, 2018
@vmx vmx deleted the meeting-20181126 branch December 3, 2018 15:50
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants