You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2020. It is now read-only.
Should the YANG package definitions be part of YANG library, or should they be contained in their own top level "packages" container?
The advantages of them being part of YANG library is that fetching the YANG library information retrieves all of the packages at the same time. However, given that one of the aims of packages is that they are available off the box, then this doesn't seem to be so useful, and perhaps would end up being a hindrance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Should the YANG package definitions be part of YANG library, or should they be contained in their own top level "packages" container?
The advantages of them being part of YANG library is that fetching the YANG library information retrieves all of the packages at the same time. However, given that one of the aims of packages is that they are available off the box, then this doesn't seem to be so useful, and perhaps would end up being a hindrance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: