Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" wrote:
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella wrote:
> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella wrote:
> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
> >
> > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > > obsolete by the unified topology.
>
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
>
> > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > obsolete by the unified topology.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> >
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
> +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> obsolete by the unified topology.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fellow Metronians,
> >
> > We've had
+1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
obsolete by the unified topology.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fellow Metronians,
>
> We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
> now, it
Fellow Metronians,
We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that I have
seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are some
simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
1.
