I plan on cutting a release candidate this week but I do not see this PR as a blocker, just a nice-to-have if appropriate.
I encourage all to review PRs and Jiras. I like RERO so if you guys can only help later, that's fine as well. Gary On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 13:46 Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I do agree that we don’t need to worry about removing synchronized for the > purpose of beeing compatible with early versions of Loom (at least not for > all commons projects). This is especially true if the code gets more ugly, > might have subtle behavior changes or similar. > > However I think in the context of the PR it looks like the existing code > did not use synchronize, so it would be good to not change it to do so > (especially not if that’s not needed for the change in question!). > > I did not follow the changes completely, so I am not sure what’s proposed. > Can we we maybe squash it at minimize the changes to fix the actual Bug (if > there is one, since I think we still have no specification on concurrency > and locking properties of VFS) and keep them Loom support discussion > separate from the release? > > Gruss > Bernd > -- > http://bernd.eckenfels.net > ________________________________ > Von: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:31:01 PM > An: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Betreff: [VFS] Consensus needed for > https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154 > > I want to move the discussion from the PR to this mailing list, > https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154 > > TY, > Gary >
