[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] Proposal for requirement "occurrences"
Yes, weâre probably well beyond the point where attempts at consensus building are productive. Weâll switch to majority rule in order to make progress. Thanks, Chris From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com> Sorry, Chris, but this is getting tiresome for me and I'm sure everyone else is already bored. As I said, I know you made all kinds of assumptions in order to answer the fuzzy parts of the spec "clearly" for yourself, and in the end came up with the idea of "dangling requirements". But I disagree with most of these assumptions. I've
answered all of the points already. On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:
Yes. And you do this via a node template and a graph relating your node templates. That's how you describe things, with models. A broken graph is a broken design. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]