Thanks to Matthias, Bruno, Lucas, and Walker for voting. So I consider this
KIP accepted.
Cheers,
Alieh
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:26 AM Lucas Brutschy
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks for the KIP!
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 7:55 PM Walker Carlson
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the KIP!
Cheers,
Lucas
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 7:55 PM Walker Carlson
wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks for the kip Alieh!
>
> Walker
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP, Alieh!
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Best,
> > Bruno
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the kip Alieh!
Walker
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP, Alieh!
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Best,
> Bruno
>
> On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not
> >
Thanks for the KIP, Alieh!
+1 (binding)
Best,
Bruno
On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not
use `get` as prefix for the getters.
So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`.
Otherwise the KIP LGTM.
One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not
use `get` as prefix for the getters.
So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`.
Otherwise the KIP LGTM.
+1 (binding)
-Matthias
On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote:
Hi everyone,
Since KIP-960 is
Hi everyone,
Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further comments
are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this
point.
A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the
following-up ones), and
participated in the discussion
