Push association #3359
Merged
Push association #3359
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
MikeBishop
added
editorial
RyanTheOptimist
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other than conflicting with #3309 (/me shakes his fist!) this looks good to me. I appreciate the neutrality around the interpretation of association.
martinthomson
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2020
|
IIUC, since this is editorial it be merged before Ryan's PR #3309 that removes DUPLICATE_PUSH in order to solve the design issue #3275 . Once merged, Ryan will need to remove the sentence |
|
Instead of just removing the sentence, probably replace it with a sentence about sending multiple PUSH_PROMISES to associate with multiple streams, but basically. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #3334.
I decided to keep this pretty simple and leave the use or lack thereof unspecified, since we already know there's variation there. I was hoping to avoid creating conflicts with #3309, but it made more sense to pull the association references into the same paragraph, which that PR also touches. Sorry, @RyanatGoogle!
Editorial-ish -- explicitly states a MAY that was previously implicit.