Skip to content

Contract Definition #55

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2014
Merged

Contract Definition #55

merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2014

Conversation

benjchristensen
Copy link
Contributor

Results of discussions in #40, #19, #37, #41 and #46

Results of discussions in #40, #19, #37, #41 and #46
- Publisher
- Subscriber
- Subscription
NOTE: The specifications below use binding words in CAPLOCKS from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/CAPLOCKS/VERSALS/

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had never heard of the word versal until here so went and looked it up. I don't think versal works, as it says it is for starting a verse, paragraph, etc whereas these are anywhere in the text.

of or relating to a style of ornate capital letter used to start a verse, paragraph, etc., in a manuscript, typically built up by inking between pen strokes and with long, rather flat serifs.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, the joy of natural languages and typography ;-) I assumed that the word was special enough to have the same meaning in English and German; let’s go with CAPITAL LETTERS then.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you want me to force update this PR with that change? append a commit? or submit yet another PR?

@rkuhn
Copy link
Member

rkuhn commented May 19, 2014

LGTM (apart from the “VERSALS” nitpick)

Thanks for implementing the discussed changes!

@benjchristensen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we merge this based on agreement at #46 (comment) or should we wait for a LGTM from everyone here?

@rkuhn
Copy link
Member

rkuhn commented May 20, 2014

Hmm, the proper procedure in the proposed CONTRIBUTING rules would be to require LGTMs on this PR, but I think we might have discussed this particular change enough to just merge it now ;-) I’d say go ahead.

This was referenced May 20, 2014
@benjchristensen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merging ... been reviewed, discussed and approved by many people over many weeks :-)

benjchristensen added a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2014
@benjchristensen benjchristensen merged commit 289c15e into reactive-streams:master May 20, 2014
@benjchristensen benjchristensen deleted the contract-readme branch May 20, 2014 20:14
@benjchristensen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks everyone who was involved in this one!

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.

2 participants