Hi Aigars, thank you for your contribution. Could you quantify how much usefulness is removed? Like, for what percentage of packages would this work and for how many not?
I'm looking forward to your answer. Ansgar On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 01:11 +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > Removing nearly all usefulness from the system and preventing it from > getting more useful over time is not a compromise. That is blocking > by a wrecking amendment. > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 01:03 Ansgar 🙀, <ans...@43-1.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 14:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I don't think it's bad in any inherent way, but it's not > > > tag2upload. It's > > > not the thing that the developers have been working on, it > > > doesn't solve > > > the problems they're trying to solve, and it doesn't let people > > > use the > > > workflows that they want to support. > > > > You basically say "nothing would work at all". > > > > Is any change a hard blocker from the tag2upload team perspective? > > Or > > is there some room for changes, even though it would be a design > > that > > is not identical to the one currently proposed by the tag2upload > > developers? > > > > Because from my perspective it mostly looks like us like ftp-master > > willing to find some compromise, but the tag2upload side hard > > blocking > > on any possible change. > > > > If there is absolutely no space for changes, then it's probably not > > useful to have any discussion as we would just turn in circles. > > > > Ansgar > >
