-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
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
IPFS Principles #390
IPFS Principles #390
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I read the preview: https://bafybeigii6yqtyon4ourvh3gyeverx52jnn4ltsbwiulgdzulzbwn7xspu.on.fleek.co/architecture/principles/
Great work @darobin!
I assume we'll discuss more at 2023-03-30 implementer's sync, but I also don't see a lot of harm merging this soon and improving with followups.
Co-authored-by: Steve Loeppky <[email protected]>
Left a small correction, but looks pretty good 😄. Thanks @darobin and everyone who helped make this happen 🙏. |
Co-authored-by: Adin Schmahmann <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent gift to the IPFS community, thank you @darobin ❤️
- fixed a typo and one broken link due to feat: rename Delegated Routing HTTP API to Routing v1 HTTP API #387
- filled some css papercuts (not blockers, we can fix them in separate PRs: Tweak CSS of cited text spec-generator#8, :dfn[foo] should be presented in a way that allows for linking to them spec-generator#7)
- dropped some 💡 for posterity ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
r+
(x1000)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe this will close it out.
no. apparently you can't close a review on an already merged pr.
my review will live forever unresolved, like a obelisk to the living document it was in service of.
This is the PR for the IPFS Principles draft we have been working on. I'm keeping it as a draft pending further feedback and also because it needs the site to land before it can land.
I hesitated but I didn't file an IPIP with this on the grounds that it doesn't add or modify any implementation. That being said these considerations are potentially load-bearing and this document might end up being referred to a fair bit, so I'm happy to add an IPIP if others prefer it that way!