Sanjay

@sanjay

219 Following

3451 Followers

Sanjay pfp

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Sanjay pfp

Thanks. I’m out today, but @dynemyte can investigate.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Could you share an repro?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Fixed in https://github.com/farcasterxyz/snapchain/pull/463. We'll release tomorrow

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Ah. Hubble was using a mix of camel and snake case. We converted everything to snake case for consistency in snapchain. We should’ve preserved backwards compatibility. Sorry about that. Please switch to snake case. Let me know if it’s not possible, we can patch to respect both.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Will investigate. Is this http api or grpc or both?

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

This is a snapchain bug. I just fixed it. Will include in the next release. Possibly today or tomorrow.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Let me investigate

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

What’s the exact endpoint you’re trying to call?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Released Hubble 0.19.3 which pushes version expiry to May 15. This will be the last hubble update. If you are still running hubs, please switch to snapchain instead of upgrading. Please reach out if you run into any issues with the migration.

0 reply

2 recasts

28 reactions

Sanjay pfp

Only if you need data from the network. Snapchain has a different network model than hubs, so more nodes doesn't necessarily help with decentralization or benefit the network the same way.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Thanks for the feedback, filed this to improve validator set visibility https://github.com/farcasterxyz/snapchain/issues/437. We run 4 nodes and neynar runs 1 node. We wanted to keep this small and closed for launch Once snapchain is stable (few months) we'll set up a process to add more validators

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Sanjay pfp

On 2. I was thinking a discussion post (like one of https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions) that you can subscribe to, not an issue. 3. Yeah, most were procedural with no meaningful changes, which is why I'm leaning towards ad-hoc releases with snapchain. But some people prefer the predictability of a fixed 4/6-week release cycle.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Sanjay pfp

Good idea. I like it. We've just historically been allergic to major versions. Maybe time for a change.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Sanjay pfp

If you are a node operator, would be interested in your feedback on 1. How much heads up do you need for minor version upgrades? 1 week? 2 weeks? 2. How would you like to be notified? Snapchain channel? Github issue/post? Something else? 3. Any other feedback (keep fixed schedule like hubs or do it ad-hoc?)

3 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

Sanjay pfp

a) will be released as a patch release (0.1.1 -> 0.1.2) and node operators can upgrade at their own pace. No impact if you choose not to upgrade b) will be released as a minor version upgrade (0.1.1 -> 0.2.0) and operators must upgrade before a certain time, otherwise their node will halt.

2 replies

0 recast

8 reactions

Sanjay pfp

Thinking about the upgrade process for Snapchain and looking for feedback. There are going to be two kinds of changes: a) Soft forks (bug fixes, minor improvements and non-consensus breaking changes) b). Hard forks (breaking changes, typically FIP implementations or other major changes that affects consensus)

2 replies

5 recasts

37 reactions

Sanjay pfp

Yes, snapchain doesn’t have a VM or any programmable layer, it’s not designed for that.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sanjay pfp

They likely didn’t make it to snapchain. We’ll investigate cc @dynemyte

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Sanjay pfp

Your messages will not be lost if you're only publishing to hubs, we'll ensure everything gets migrated over. They may just be delayed.

1 reply

0 recast

11 reactions