On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>
> > On 13. Feb 2019, at 17:12, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look!
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >
> >> Nick, this is great, I have a few tiny nits left, apologies I
> On 13. Feb 2019, at 17:12, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> Nick, this is great, I have a few tiny nits left, apologies I only now got
>> to it.
>>
>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 18:08, Nick
Hi Jan,
Thanks for taking a look!
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Nick, this is great, I have a few tiny nits left, apologies I only now got
> to it.
>
> > On 12. Feb 2019, at 18:08, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
> >
> > Shard Splitting API Proposal
> >
> > I'd like thank
Nick, this is great, I have a few tiny nits left, apologies I only now got to
it.
> On 12. Feb 2019, at 18:08, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>
> Shard Splitting API Proposal
>
> I'd like thank everyone who contributed to the API discussion. As a result
> we have a much better and consistent API that
Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! I’d love for us to
lead the way here (yet again).
Best
Jan
—
> On 12. Feb 2019, at 20:15, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> There appears to be general consensus on the RFC process, with no
> objections to the proposal itself.
>
