On 02.08.2016 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote: I don't have rights to commit my changes, and looks like I can not persuade others that my changes are Ok as-is, with all changes, made on requests from reviewers.
Personally, I think, that (1) + (2) is orthogonal to (3) and it should be different change sets, reviews, etc. And, yes, (3) is great feature by itself. > Do we have any movement on these improvements? > even similar functionality by different names is ok. > > 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most > important for me. (store-state)? > 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less important > for me. > 3/ multiple state tables? this was discussed and I thought I saw patches > but I haven't seen it going in, <-- super luxurious -- // Lev Serebryakov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
