On 15 Mar (18:13:02), George Kadianakis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I took a look at proposal 224 again, with the aim of revisiting the cell
> logic and format.
>
> Here are some matters that require discussion:
>
> 1) Should we keep backwards compability with old introduction and rendezvous
> points?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, David Goulet wrote:
> On 15 Mar (18:13:02), George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I took a look at proposal 224 again, with the aim of revisiting the cell
>> logic and format.
>>
>> Here are some matters that require discussion:
>>
For everybody who wasn't the
Hello,
I took a look at proposal 224 again, with the aim of revisiting the cell logic
and format.
Here are some matters that require discussion:
1) Should we keep backwards compability with old introduction and rendezvous
points?
Currently, proposal 224 actually tries to maintain backwards