Skip to content
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

MSC4213: Remove server_name parameter #4213

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Johennes
Copy link
Contributor

@Johennes Johennes commented Oct 9, 2024

Rendered


In line with matrix-org/matrix-spec#1700, the following disclosure applies:

I am a Systems Architect at gematik, Software Engineer at Unomed, Matrix community member and former Element employee. This proposal was written and published with my community member hat on.

@Johennes Johennes force-pushed the johannes/remove-server-name branch 2 times, most recently from b894e89 to a083ae4 Compare October 9, 2024 10:12
@Johennes Johennes changed the title MSCXXXX: Remove server_name parameter MSC4213: Remove server_name parameter Oct 9, 2024
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <n0-0ne+github@mailbox.org>
@Johennes Johennes marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2024 10:15
@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Oct 9, 2024
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implementation requirements:

I'm tempted to mirror #4127 (comment) and say "none", but am second-guessing that MSC's requirements too. It might be beneficial to have evidence that developers are picking up the newer approaches before suggesting removal from the spec.

Thoughts very welcome.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might not count because they were all created by me but there are five implementations linked in the proposal's body, four of which have already landed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API hacktoberfest-accepted kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants