In my view, the person doing the work has priority over how it should be
done, except when there are serious negative consequences.
While I appreciate Pete's solution is in a sense complete, Pete has also
said that he doesn't have time to work further on it.
Thomas has offered to improve it, and seems to be vested in it, so my take
is that we go in that direction.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:01 AM, Thomas Schmitt <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi,
Pete Batard wrote:
Then, as a pragmatic person, I vote for the "only add total_size"
approach,
I agree that pragmatism should not be half-hearted.
It will last a few days until i am done with polishing the statv2
proposal. If you did not do it yourself until then, i plan to strip
down a copy of pbatard-multiextent2 to the version without extent array
and ISO_MAX_MULTIEXTENT.
At latest at that point i will ask you for some testing effort.
Then it is nearly only about the decision whether ABI is worth to be
kept compatible or whether it may change with each release.
(Pete and i made clear our differing views.)
If the decision is made for ABI change and pragmatic proposal, then
we could still bring in statv2 in the unlikely case that we ever encounter
an ISO which does not fulfill the pragmatic assumptions.
(This would of course become increasingly cumbersome after more changes
in libiso9660.)
Have a nice day :)
Thomas