-
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): Consensus timeouts and synchrony assumptions #765
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.
Looks good
specs/consensus/overview.md
Outdated
> Implementations could cancel scheduled timeouts when the state changes and | ||
> the associated conditions are no longer observed. |
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.
I guess also when the process goes to the next round or if it decides and goes to the next height.
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.
I am explicitly citing the guard conditions, that are not detailed but explained in the previous paragraph.
Co-authored-by: Josef Widder <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel <[email protected]>
379ea07
to
4fe9cdb
Compare
Co-authored-by: Josef Widder <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel <[email protected]>
Part of #761.
Rendered section.
Probably it is better to merge this PR after PR #764.
PR author checklist
For all contributors
For external contributors