Is the new implementation a separate, distinctly modularized new body of work or does it make substantial changes to existing implementation and subsume it?
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:56 AM Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding option #4, I'll remark that experience tends to suggest users > don't consistently read the `NEWS.txt` file on upgrade, so option #4 will > likely essentially mean "LWT has a correctness issue, but once it broke > your data enough that you'll notice, you'll be able to dig the proper flag > to fix it for next time". I guess it's better than nothing, of course, but > I'll admit that defaulting to "opt-in correctness", especially for a > feature (LWT) that exists uniquely to provide additional guarantees, is > something I have a hard rallying behind. > > But a performance regression is a regression, I'm not shrugging it off. > Still, I feel we shouldn't leave LWT with a fairly serious known > correctness bug and I frankly feel bad for "the project" that this has been > known for so long without action, so I'm a bit biased in wanting to get it > fixed asap. > > But maybe I'm overstating the urgency here, and maybe option #1 is a better > way forward. > > -- > Sylvain >
