Merlijn Vos

I don't think we should do this. - It's error prone to always double `await` when using the the client - the parenthesis around the `await` are awkward. - AFAIK...

> yes, I believe we are vulnerable on 11, see #4317 npm audit is [broken by design](https://overreacted.io/npm-audit-broken-by-design/). Do we have proof we are actually vulnerable in our usage? > true,...

> anyways we should probably eventually upgrade our npm dependencies so we don't have to stay on older versions and will be missing out on features and security fixes in...

We're still not sure whether we want to take on the maintenance burden of this plugin. It's quite a lot of code for a provider I never heard anyone needing...

> I understand. It's a bit unfortunate, as that will require me to maintain our fork and build our own docker images forever, but as long as we get the...

> Are there any updates what's going to happen with this? I will bring it up again with the team on Monday. Sorry for the uncertainty. > We merged master...

Hi, sorry the long wait. We decided to take on the WebDAV simple auth provide but not the WebDAV OAuth plugin for now. If we see more need for it...

Letting this rest for a bit, I'm already foreseeing edge cases with my proposed solution (which was already questionable from the start as mentioned): - We don't know the amount...

We already more or less have a priority queue, as in it supports the `priority: number` option when you queue something. However I don't think that is enough to really...

I'm aware of that package, it's good, but it doesn't solve the problem in itself. I'd like to once again reiterate that I'm asking how the queue relates to Uppy's...