Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Correction: "... we can declare ..." in the last sentence above is incorrect.
Instead, we should consider all events which are targets of (min/max timed)
event transitions into this partition from the previous partition in the path
(set X). We should also consider all events which are sources of (min/max
timed) event transitions out of this partition into the next partition in the
path (set Y). If X != Y, there's a potential for a stitching.
More informally, the (min/max timed) event transitions we used to reach this
partition must all be followed by (min/max timed) event transitions to the next
partition in the path. All of the former must connect to one of the latter,
and all of the latter must come from one of the former, i.e., X==Y.
Original comment by tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 12 Aug 2013 at 8:25
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Sorry for all the incorrect "solution" comments... This is for real.
Solution in revision 704d2733e2fc, please review.
Original comment by tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 12 Aug 2013 at 10:20
Correct if I'm wrong, but I believe this is blocking on our discussion of the
constrained refinement algorithm. I'll wait to review this until we've looked
through the step-wise description of the algorithm and have come to a consensus
of how it should behave (+ if this issue needs further work/changes).
Original comment by bestchai
on 14 Aug 2013 at 4:23
That's right. This is on hold for now.
Original comment by tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 14 Aug 2013 at 6:19
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Solution in revision 382c3b6004a0, please review.
Original comment by tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 28 Aug 2013 at 6:14
Merged into default via Issue335 merge with revision dcba6587c52d
Original comment by tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 1 Oct 2013 at 3:44
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
tonyohm...@gmail.com
on 7 Aug 2013 at 4:19