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 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.
I'm not happy with
FollowGroup.In an effort not to break backward compatibility, I kept the same
repeated Follow followstype, and bolted on anoptional int32 follow_groupfield.That means that implementors have to keep the
followsandfollow_groupsindexes 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.