Tails

#8 Updated by sajolida 2018-06-07 09:23:27

I hereby propose that we reject entirely this iteration 3 and give higher priority to VeraCrypt Mounter.

#9 Updated by segfault 2018-06-07 22:22:17

sajolida wrote:
> I hereby propose that we reject entirely this iteration 3 and give higher priority to VeraCrypt Mounter.

I agree. I would still like to do this, but the VeraCrypt Mounter is more important (for reference, see the discussion on Feature #15628#note-5 and following).

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-08 05:59:22

> sajolida wrote:
>> I hereby propose that we reject entirely this iteration 3 and give higher priority to VeraCrypt Mounter.

> I agree. I would still like to do this, but the VeraCrypt Mounter is more important (for reference, see the discussion on Feature #15628#note-5 and following).

I’ll read that discussion in order to understand this proposal and then let’s make a decision during our next meeting on Monday (worst case). Spoiler: I’m inclined to trust you on this one so unless I identify something you both have missed — unlikely — there’s a good chance I’ll agree :)

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-10 12:47:58

segfault wrote:
> sajolida wrote:
>> I hereby propose that we reject entirely this iteration 3 and give higher priority to VeraCrypt Mounter.

> I agree. I would still like to do this, but the VeraCrypt Mounter is more important (for reference, see the discussion on Feature #15628#note-5 and following).

I have read Feature #15628#note-5 and following and it seems to me that your (plural) conclusion is based on the analysis of the “File container without .hc extension” scenario.
FTR my analysis is slightly different (Feature #15628#note-8) and does not logically imply that the lack of VeraCrypt Mounter would be such a big problem.
I’d like to discuss this and reach a common conclusion during our meeting tomorrow. But if you want to comment on Redmine, let’s continue this discussion where it started (Feature #15628).

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-11 13:39:39

intrigeri wrote:
> I have read Feature #15628#note-5 and following and it seems to me that your (plural) conclusion is based on the analysis of the “File container without .hc extension” scenario.
> FTR my analysis is slightly different (Feature #15628#note-8) and does not logically imply that the lack of VeraCrypt Mounter would be such a big problem.

But after discussing this topic a bit with segfault, regardless of how critical we think VeraCrypt Mounter is, I agree its more important than iteration 3.

#17 Updated by segfault 2019-07-19 22:07:46

I think we can reject this. We don’t have any budget anymore for the VeraCrypt project and I don’t plan to work on this. @intrigeri, do you agree?

#18 Updated by intrigeri 2019-08-04 08:31:08

> I think we can reject this. We don’t have any budget anymore for the VeraCrypt project and I don’t plan to work on this. intrigeri, do you agree?

Absolutely, please reject all subtasks and then this ticket.

#20 Updated by intrigeri 2019-08-04 09:01:58

> Redmine doesn’t allow me to reject this ticket, even though I rejected all the subtickets

That’s because it’s blocked by Feature #15223. I’ll fix that myself.

#23 Updated by segfault 2019-08-04 09:17:33

intrigeri wrote:
> > Redmine doesn’t allow me to reject this ticket, even though I rejected all the subtickets
>
> That’s because it’s blocked by Feature #15223. I’ll fix that myself.

Thanks!