Hello, On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 01:49PM +01, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:16:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Do you think that would end up capturing all discussions, with possibly >> a few weeks delay? Is it typical in Discourse use to lock/close threads >> after a certain point? And do you think the API is stable enough for us >> to start doing something like this? >> > > That's entirely dependant on the configuration :) For example, on > GNOME's Discourse instance, I have a few categories where it is set to > close 14 days after the last reply. > > Then again, people can also request that they're reopened... > > I suspect the API should be stable enough for this, if people wanted to > store discussions in a form that isn't discourse itself. Based on other posts in the thread it sounds like the API is not actually stable enough to support this sort of thing, but of course that could change. It sounds like we would need to disable the unlocking functionality you mention in order for offline longterm storage to be feasible. To be honest, the lack of any proper archival means that I am reluctant to start any meaningful discussions on the test instance you've set up, but then it is rather difficult to test whether it's a good platform for us to have meaningful discussions... Is it perhaps possible for us to subscribe a mailing list to all posts from the instance, so that we know that there's a copy somewhere? On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 05:17PM +02, Martin wrote: > On 2020-04-14 15:49, Neil McGovern wrote: >> If you're using the stable branch of Discourse, then the API is stable >> :) > > Ha! ;-) This leads a little bit off-topic here, maybe it's > better off-list, on #956705, or elsewhere: > > Can I expect API stability cycles of Discourse long enough, that > it were practical to have a client (library) in stable? If others share my concerns about posterity then it is not off-topic. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature