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
