Gerasimos Chourdakis

I understand the technical aspects. But I still see a lot of "could", "maybe", and "what if" in this discussion. Good to document the idea anyway, who knows what future...

Very nice idea! How would we handle changing names and merging functions together?

And I assume information about previous versions is not included, as one then can look at the history? Or keep the information for simple renamings, but discard for actual replacement...

Where would you suggest checking this? > This size only makes sense to check, when the currently configured participant actually matches the local participant. I am not sure I understand:...

Ah, good to know I am not the only one who finds this duplicate! :smile: The approach I was thinking of was merging `from` and `provide` to only `from`, with...

> Do you think you could come up with an integration test for a similar case? The multi coupling scheme is not very well tested anyway and with additional data...

Note that initializing **all** (or no) data works. The problem seems to be specifically when initializing only some data.

> > I will first check for tutorials reproducing this. > > Not strictly necessary in my opinion. Reproducing with an integration test should be easier. As discussed today: We...

As I wrote already, I only intended to have a `minor` as implied `min-minor`: > We could even extend that to something like `` to signify that a feature mentioned...

> What's holding us back? Nothing, just priorities and time. I think the solution with `pyprecice~=3.0` is good, provided it will install a newer feature release, if available. Happy to...