Folks, Since KIP-159 is still under discussion while KIP-160 already have a PR ready for review, I'd suggest we do not block James for too long but vote on the current proposal while we can further expand the APIs piggy-backed with KIP-159. Thoughts?
Guozhang On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:54 PM, James Chain <james.chain1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Matthias's comment. > I check everyone's comment which all agree about this(Matthias's comment) > :D > > > James Chien > -- -- Guozhang
