-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(spec): Requirements on valid(v) #748
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work.
Most of the suggestions I made were to align the content of this section with the "format" used in the remainder of this document.
Regarding the last sub(*)section, from line 540, I think it should not be part of this document. The same for the linked commend in issue 510.
They end up being too much specific for the level of detail that is considered in this document.
Co-authored-by: Daniel <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Widder <[email protected]>
I agree. We might do another md file with implementation-specific discussions, and link it. More generally, I find the document very long. I wonder whether we should cut it in multiple shorter ones that might be easier to navigate if we have a good top-level document... |
Signed-off-by: Daniel <[email protected]>
For an "overview" document it is definitely, ehe. But I wonder whether we should try to split it now or first have on it all content we find relevant, then do the splitting? |
Let's fix the TODO on soft upgrades on our call tomorrow. Then merge, and open an issue about splitting. |
Closes: #510
PR author checklist
For all contributors
For external contributors