feat(spec): Requirements on valid(v) #748
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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