the “last seen” state of one of my devices is different on two devices. at the moment the last seen state describes, when the other device has been seen on this device - not the global “last seen” state right? would it be possible to show the real global “last time online” on every device? this would mean, that the last “last seen” state needs to be transmitted to all devices that are connected to the offline device…
This is not easy, I suspect. Instead of just having per-folder indexes which are synchronized between all devices with access to that folder, you’re now also asking for per-device “indexes” which are likewise synchronized between all devices with access to that device. All for what? So that a bit of information has a slightly different
for example: dev1 shows: 2015-06-29 01:45:18 dev2 shows: 2015-06-21 15:24:09 wouldn’t it be enough only to spread the last “last seen” state instead of building a index for it? (maybe using discosrv?)
I used “index” in quotes because it isn’t an index in the sense of the folder index, but rather it’s a similar piece of data which needs to be synced between peers which are given permission to know about it.
Using discosrv would be the centralised way to do this, with all the disadvantages that that brings (what if none of the devices are using a centralised discovery server, and are using hardcoded addresses or dynamic discovery? What if two discovery servers are used? etc)… Which is not what Syncthing is about. If this were ever done, it would be done in the same peer-to-peer fashion as the folder indexes are.
ah… ok. means directly from device to device…
image you have a bigger network of devices and you need to know, when deviceXY was online the last time - you have to search for it over the whole network… could be useful 
If you’re really passionate about it, add it to the list of issues on GitHub. I can almost guarantee you that, since it’s a very minor little nice-to-have but a significant chunk of work, there are many hundreds of issues which will closed off before this one is looked at seriously.
I’m fine without (except I’m not the only one) 
Those who want it can organize themselves and implement it then
2 Likes
I think there are better things to invest time in, hence whoever cares about this very much can invest the time, but I can tell you ahead of tine that this would be a protocol incompatible change.
Plus think of the following topology: A-B B-C C-D D-A
A offline, D would never know about when B last saw A, just because C does not know about A, and D is not directly connected to B
confused, but yes 
There is no ‘global’ state, it is peer to peer. Hence I think it would confuse ppl more than what we have now;)