+1 non binding, tested my changes on a few dag examples, everything looks
good!
Regards,
Pavan Kumar
On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 4:43 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> +1 binding on sigs, license & checksums
>
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 20:46, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, c
+1 Non binding
--
Regards,
Vishnu C.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 05:00 Pavankumar Gopidesu
wrote:
> +1 non binding, tested my changes on a few dag examples, everything looks
> good!
>
> Regards,
> Pavan Kumar
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 4:43 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > +1 binding on sigs, license & c
Nothing much more was covered about splitting packages this time, I think it
happened in the previous meeting, so that might be the best one to watch back.
All we covered on Thursday was talking about how not installing providers in
the web server would need to work (i.e. ExtraLinks and connecti
Thanks Ash and Jens. I see that we have a doc to write (and Vikram agreed
to do it) - Vikram, Jens - I am happy to join the efforts and have the
first stab and maybe even lead on implementing that part if no-one else
signed up already. I can lead preparation of such a doc or simply be added
as co-
Jarek,
Absolutely intend to have you and Elad be co-authors on the proposed
solution here.
Jens has done a great job of identifying some of the early parts of the
solution as part of the diagrams which we discussed in the last two dev
calls. There are a few core elements to this problem and clear
