> You were part of that slack thread, so it was a bad presumption on my behalf.
I am flattered, but I’m sure your intention was in fact to involve everyone in
this discussion. As it happens, I commented only on the end of that lengthy
thread and did not participate in the section you linked, so
> > Yeah, not described enough in this thread, it is part of the motivation to
> > the proposal
>
> I don’t believe it has been mentioned once in this thread. This should have
> been clearly stated upfront as a motivation. Thus far no positive case has
> been made on this topic, we have instead
> Yeah, not described enough in this thread, it is part of the motivation to
> the proposal
I don’t believe it has been mentioned once in this thread. This should have
been clearly stated upfront as a motivation. Thus far no positive case has been
made on this topic, we have instead wasted a lo
>
> Do you intend to use this capability, and if so could you point out where you
> highlighted this motivation previously?
>
Yeah, not described enough in this thread, it is part of the motivation
to the proposal, and was discussed in the slack thread:
https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CK23J
