-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 580
RFC: [determinism] Improve list of ops in #370
RFC: [determinism] Improve list of ops in #370
Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign. Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with What to do if you already signed the CLAIndividual signers
Corporate signers
ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
|
@googlebot I signed it! |
|
Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign. Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with What to do if you already signed the CLAIndividual signers
Corporate signers
ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
e6483c6 to
2ff42e2
Compare
|
@sanjoy: please will you advocate for these changes getting merged? Also, please will you approve for me to deliver these kinds of periodic updates to the RFC. I believe that these kinds of updates don't modify the fundamental nature of the RFC, and so shouldn't require broad approval, but do make the RFC more complete and correct and enable it to provide an accurate template for the future API documentation. Does this make sense, or I am misunderstanding the nature of an approved RFC? |
|
These kinds of updates LGTM to me (I agree with @duncanriach 's comment that these are not fundamental changes to the RFC). @ematejska do see any issues in merging these? |
|
@sanjoy. Seems ok with me with your approval. |
This updated list adds ops, fixes various issues, and sorts the ops lexicographically.