Skip to content

Conversation

@tehdiplomat
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@Agetian
Copy link
Contributor

Agetian commented Nov 1, 2025

Looks good, but needs a conflict resolution, it seems...

@Jetz72
Copy link
Contributor

Jetz72 commented Nov 21, 2025

Oh, I didn't notice this was open when I added it in #9096. Close as redundant then?

@jumpinjackie
Copy link
Contributor

I noticed the predicates in both are different.

This one, each predicate subsequently negates the preceding one, while the one in #9096 each predicate just negates the "standard" set predicate, so it looks like the "vintage" predicate will still have possibility of "modern" sets in it, and the "modern" predicate will still have possibility of "pioneer" sets in it. etc.

@Jetz72
Copy link
Contributor

Jetz72 commented Nov 22, 2025

Yes, I discussed the reasoning behind doing it that way in the other PR. We can still change it if we want, though if anything, it might be easier to drop the random format filters in favor of a single weighted selection that we can bump up and down based on edition characteristics.

@jumpinjackie
Copy link
Contributor

Ah, point taken.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants