You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In an effort not to break backward compatibility, I kept the same repeated Follow follows type, and bolted on an optional int32 follow_group field.
That means that implementors have to keep the follows and follow_groups indexes in sync. And if one implementation is lazy, they can become out of sync and break things.
It's complicated enough that I never even implemented it myself.
Ideally we'd just shove the follows into follow-groups so that it's easy to implement. Maybe we keep the "follows" field around too for ungrouped follows? Need to think on this one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm not happy with
FollowGroup
.In an effort not to break backward compatibility, I kept the same
repeated Follow follows
type, and bolted on anoptional int32 follow_group
field.That means that implementors have to keep the
follows
andfollow_groups
indexes in sync. And if one implementation is lazy, they can become out of sync and break things.It's complicated enough that I never even implemented it myself.
Ideally we'd just shove the follows into follow-groups so that it's easy to implement. Maybe we keep the "follows" field around too for ungrouped follows? Need to think on this one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: