Re: t2u in the archive

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: t2u in the archive"):
> Honestly I think that sounds way more complicated than a "git ls-files
> something" based file and process, and binds us more tightly to actual
> git than ls-files does (one could easily have more fields in there, if
> deemed neccessary).
> 
> But I don't see anything obviously so wrong that its a NO, so fine.

Thanks.  We don't much like this either, but we like it much more than
putting the extra stuff in the tag.

> > The new listing program could be written in the language of your
> > choice.  (I'm volunteering to write it.)
> 
> While I personally love Rust nowadays, dak is python, so python that
> will be. (While it won't be integrated into dak (so easier for others to
> take), it should share the same language).

OK.

Thanks!  I am really looking forward to this turning into a coding
problem.

Sean, I think we should finish updating the design with these agreed
changes.  Joerg, when we have done that, will you review it and make
sure we have properly captured what you think we've agreed ?

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.