Re: Death to multi-way runops cores

Simon -- > To be honest, I'm a bit unhappy about all this: > > runops_t0p0b1_core, > runops_t0p1b0_core, > runops_t0p1b1_core, > runops_t1p0b0_core, > runops_t1p0b1_core, > runops_t1p1b0_core, > runops_t1p1b1_core I don't blame you. Its an interim solution with a bigger idea behin

Death to multi-way runops cores

To be honest, I'm a bit unhappy about all this: runops_t0p0b1_core, runops_t0p1b0_core, runops_t0p1b1_core, runops_t1p0b0_core, runops_t1p0b1_core, runops_t1p1b0_core, runops_t1p1b1_core My feeling is that you get a fast runops core for normal use and a slow runops core which does