As discussed during the last weekly call, we should extract the extended contribution details from the main contribution document and store them in a separate document, which can be side-loaded only when necessary. At the moment, no client actually needs the extended details at all, and in kredits-web, we will only need them when looking at a specific contribution.
I would propose to then also extend the ipfs-pinner to recognize any generic JSON objects with a "ipfs" property and pin those hashes automatically as well.
As discussed during the last weekly call, we should extract the extended contribution details from the main contribution document and store them in a separate document, which can be side-loaded only when necessary. At the moment, no client actually needs the extended details at all, and in kredits-web, we will only need them when looking at a specific contribution.
Reasoning
Consider a typical GitHub pull request document: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmbd62E98ikysm2vzgj89w1b4QutdWP1oN6YFjLqphyL7D
The size of this is ~19KB. However, the only necessary information for most clients is:
A cool 309 bytes in this case, which is ~1.6% of the current document.
So the idea is to do the same as with the contributor hash (which isn't currently used by any client actually, but that's irrelevant here):
Pinning / backup / distribution
I would propose to then also extend the
ipfs-pinner
to recognize any generic JSON objects with a "ipfs" property and pin those hashes automatically as well.