Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cleanup README #177

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2023
Merged

Cleanup README #177

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2023

Conversation

stv0g
Copy link
Member

@stv0g stv0g commented Mar 11, 2023

No description provided.

@stv0g stv0g requested a review from masterada March 11, 2023 14:59
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 11, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (6d63a76) 79.20% compared to head (791fd8c) 79.20%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #177   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.20%   79.20%           
=======================================
  Files          63       63           
  Lines        3189     3189           
=======================================
  Hits         2526     2526           
  Misses        551      551           
  Partials      112      112           
Flag Coverage Δ
go 79.20% <ø> (ø)
wasm 77.01% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

README.md Outdated
* [RTCP Feedback for Congestion Control](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8888) the standardized alternative to TWCC.
* [RTCP Feedback for Congestion Control][rfc8888] the standardized alternative to TWCC.

### RFCs
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find it slightly confusing to have the list planned/implemented duplicated. Wouldn't it be enough to have the RFC numbers mentioned in the list above?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've tried to harmonize the Pion repos. And more of them are using a list of implemented/planned RFCs

@Sean-Der Sean-Der merged commit 585f01c into pion:master Apr 24, 2023
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants