donenext
No user record in our sample, but donenext has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
No user record in our sample, but donenext has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
Thats fair. It just seems silly that a spec intended to "uniquely ID a package" supports a type that is the complete opposite of "unique". I guess another way to frame my take is should `generic` be consider a valid…
Can we completely eliminate generic as a type to remove this crutch?
Hot take, `generic` as a type is a crutch most tooling uses out of laziness and has significantly reduced the usefulness of PURL spec. How do we improve this?
Yes, 1000x yes
completely agree here `git` type using the namespace of your choice would be plenty to enable tools to find these packages. Even though its not "officially" supported in the spec this is what we do internally