On 4/29/2016 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Right, I think it goes pretty much without saying, so this sentence is
>IMO unnecessary.
>
Apparently, this was not clear to every reader and hence the proposal
to add this sentence in order to make this explicit.
This is a always a good
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:18:15AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > So perhaps the proposal is to add
> >
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > So perhaps the proposal is to add
> >
> > After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any order,
> > the resulting data model
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:00:33AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target
> > >
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:00:33AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> > Hello,
> > IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target should
> > be
> > clarified and declared as an error or implementation dependent
> On 08 Feb 2016, at 12:28, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
>
> Hello,
> IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target should be
> clarified and declared as an error or implementation dependent feature. I see
> no good way of deciding which deviation