I don't really care, I don't use memcache myself. But this just seems to me like unnecessary step
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Yuvi Panda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote: >> I see some of your points, but this seems to me like "make life of >> sysadmin easier" vs "make life of programmer (tool maintainer) far >> harder" > > Legoktm was able to port his tool from memcached to redis in a very, > very short period of time. This is less than 15 mins of work, and will > be dwarfed by work required to fix other things that break when you > move from toolserver to toollabs. > > Toolserver also never had memcached (or so Krinkle tells me), so 'will > be harder to port toolserver tools' is also not too valid reason. > > And if they really, *really* want to be that lazy, I can happily help > them port. But I think most cases will just be of people adding > caching support for their tools from scratch, so I'd rather have them > use redis (with a prefix, as documented!) than memcached. > > -- > Yuvi Panda T > http://yuvi.in/blog > > _______________________________________________ > Labs-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l _______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
