On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Daniel Friesen dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:37:02 -0800, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 04/12/12 21:24, Tyler Romeo a écrit :
Don't we have some sort of policy about an individual merging commits that
he/she uploaded? Because these three changes:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36801
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36812
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36813
Were all
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Daniel Friesen dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:37:02 -0800, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Some notes (copied from private email):
* It only creates the lock file the first time.
* The functions with different bits are not just the same thing with more
bits. Trying to abstract more just made it more confusing.
* The point is to also have something with better properties than uniqid.
There were 132 days for anybody to review and comment on the technical
approach in the UID class.
— Patrick
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Aaron Schulz aschulz4...@gmail.com wrote:
Some notes (copied from private email):
* It only creates the lock file the first time.
* The functions with
132 days? It was uploaded onto Gerrit just recently. Many of the people
here (including myself) only get notice of changes if it's discussed on the
mailing list or if a change is uploaded to Gerrit.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
On Dec 5, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Patrick Reilly prei...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There were 132 days for anybody to review and comment on the technical
approach in the UID class.
— Patrick
Even if all people involved had seen in a 100 times, self-merging is a social
rule separate from that. That
Tyler,
It was uploaded originally in the following commit:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/16696/ dated Jul 25, 2012 4:11 PM
by Aaron Schulz.
The only thing that I did was to break it off into a separate commit:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/36801/
So, the point that I was attempting to
Ah OK. That's my fault, then. I must have missed the initial upload of the
change. By the way, what exactly is the purpose of the RDBStore and
UIDGenerator classes? It looks interesting, but I'm just wondering what the
core or extensions will use it for.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of
I share some blame for the existence of this thread. I spotted the git author
issue after that commit was merged and was too lazy to revert and fix it. I
personally tend to dislike reverting stuff way more than I should (like a
prior schema change that was merged without the site being updated). I
RDBStore is shelfed as a reference for now. The idea was to partition sql
table across multiple DB servers using a consistent hash of some column.
There no longer would be the convenience of autoincrement columns so UIDs
are a way to make unique ids without a central table or counter.
In some
On 05/12/12 21:01, Aaron Schulz wrote:
RDBStore is shelfed as a reference for now. The idea was to partition sql
table across multiple DB servers using a consistent hash of some column.
There no longer would be the convenience of autoincrement columns so UIDs
are a way to make unique ids
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you need a UID?
The autoincrement id we use in most tables can (should) serve as UID.
It needs a little care when sending the inserts, but it's
straighforward. It can easily be done by a layer on top of our db
Don't we have some sort of policy about an individual merging commits that
he/she uploaded? Because these three changes:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36801
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36812
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/36813
Were all uploaded and submitted in a matter of minutes by the
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have some sort of policy about an individual merging commits that
he/she uploaded?
Yes. We've been over this a dozen times--if you're on a repository
that has multiple maintainers (ie: you're not the only one, so
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have some sort of policy about an individual merging commits that
he/she uploaded?
Yes. We've been over this a dozen times--if you're on a
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:37:02 -0800, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
wrote:
Don't we have some sort of policy about an individual merging commits
that
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Friesen
dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:37:02 -0800, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
18 matches
Mail list logo
