-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 380
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
MSC2998: Room Version 7 #2998
MSC2998: Room Version 7 #2998
Conversation
d6d1784
to
1f07f0d
Compare
proposals/2998-rooms-v7.md
Outdated
A new room version, `7`, is proposed using [room version 6](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/rooms/v6.html) as a base | ||
and incorporating the following MSCs: | ||
|
||
* [MSC2174](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2174) - Move the `redacts` key to a sane place. |
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.
There's no point in having two migrations of redaction format, we should just skip this step and go straight for mass redactions
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.
@tulir I didn't include Mass Redactions as it doesn't currently have an implementation.
You're right in that putting MSC2244 and MSC2174, especially as the former builds on the latter, into the same room version makes sense though. I'd be happy to review/help with a Synapse PR for it.
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.
also, doesn't content.redacts
have to be protected from redaction now?
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.
Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <[email protected]>
It turns out MSC2175 (remove the creator field from create events) and MSC2174 (move the redacts key) do not have an implementation yet after all, so they will also be excluded. MSC2176 (update redacted event fields) does have an implementation however, and while related to redactions, is only concerned about the keys removed from an event by the server when an event is redacted. This does not affect the structure of a redaction event, like MSC2174 and MSC2244 (mass redactions) is concerned with. While this leaves us with a fairly lean room version, releasing new features and changes more regularly in smaller room versions is a good precedence to set. |
I'm not sure I fully grok what this is saying, but #2176 seems to imply it only makes sense if #2174 was also implemented? |
MSC2174, MSC2176 and MSC2274 do indeed rely on each other and it would be best to land all of those in a single room version. As the implementation for each are not yet ready, as well as lacking an implementation for MSC2175 we're going to leave them til the next room version, and just go ahead with knocking for this one. Note that this MSC has been updated to simply reserve v7 for knocking. It does not prevent an MSC for room v8+ appearing in parallel once the above MSCs (or any other MSCs for that matter) have implementations ready. Given the above, I'm going to propose FCP on this one to get the rest of the team's feedback. @mscbot fcp merge |
Team member @anoadragon453 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. |
proposals/2998-rooms-v7.md
Outdated
* [MSC2403](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2403) - Add "knock" feature. | ||
|
||
Though other MSCs are capable of being included in this version, they do not have sufficient implementation to be | ||
considered stable enough for v7 rooms. A future room version may still include them. |
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.
This took me about 5 reads to understand - isn't it just saying, "other mscs aren't ready yet because they don't have impls"?
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.
Indeed, but written a bit tersely for the spec. I'm open to suggestions for something slightly clearer though.
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.
Maybe Though other MSCs could be included in this version, they do not have satisfactory implementations...
?
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.
I've dropped the stable enough
bit. Hopefully that makes things slightly clearer.
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. |
merged 🎉 |
Rendered