As a new community member, I have closely been following the thread and would appreciate If I could be included in the call or if the call could somehow be recorded for people who want to learn more about planning.
Thanks. On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 10:24 AM vaquar khan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Amogh, > Thanks for the response. I'd definitely appreciate the 1:1 to walk through > the planning examples and correct my understanding of the V4 metadata > structure. > I want to ensure I'm fully aligned with the current design rationale. Let > me find a common time to send you a 1-1 message to set up a call . > > regards, > Viquar Khan > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 at 11:03, Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey Vaquar, >> >> I see that the proposal changed quite a lot; even in the new proposal, I >> think there's still some fundamental misunderstandings in the current >> metadata structure, the proposed metadata structure (in particular how >> stats and partitioning would be represented in the entries). >> >> I'm a little concerned that using community sync time to talk about this >> wouldn't be a good use of time, especially since I think a lot of the >> community can see that there's no clear, legitimate issue here. >> >> I'm happy to talk 1:1 (including anyone else that's interested) and we >> can walk through concrete examples of how planning would work, with >> specific manifest entry contents before V4 and after, and I think then our >> rationale would be made a lot more clear. I'd prefer having a separate >> conversation, rather than using broader community time since there are >> other important topics that we've wanted to discuss that we haven't quite >> gotten to and we ideally don't want to rehash topics that the rest of the >> community is already aware of. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Amogh Jahagirdar >> > > > -- > Regards, > Vaquar Khan > > -- *DJIOFACK INNOCENT* *"Be better than the day before!" -* *+1 404 751 8024*
