Chris Rogus

No one has complained about this functionality. So, there are 2 cases where this might be interesting: 1. It is a rare/obscure bug that no one has yet encountered, if...

Basically at this point, I'm looking for you to explain why the existing logic does not already do what you want (I believe you that it does not, but we...

At this point I would defer to @cdroulers who wrote this original configuration provider code, and which I have very limited understanding of. The changes look possibly fine to me,...

@cdroulers if you want to review the code and make more tweaks, you are welcome to it :) That said, at this point, I don't think anything strictly needs to...

If this is not a breaking change, why are all the examples and tests changed? If people have to change their code to update to this version of the library,...

You can and should add tests, and you can change documentation to push people towards a new better approach, since this is not fixing any bugs or anything, but no...

After reflection, I do not consider these changes to be improvements, and absolutely not worth breaking backwards compatibility, or even merely risking it.

I would reconsider the decline if you can point at a specific thing you want to do, that the current approach genuinely does not allow you to do, or is...

From my perspective, while the main point of uuid v7 is to put the clock at the front, so that db indexes can btree on them properly, counters add additional...

That said, "SHOULD" is indeed a recommendation, rather than requirement, and they list multiple alternatives. So I support having a separate set of ctor functions to call for the counter...