Simon Eskildsen <simon.eskild...@shopify.com> wrote:
> This looks good to me.
Thanks for taking a look.
> Only question is, why not make Raindrops 0.18+ a requirement to avoid
> the Raindrops.const_defined?(:TCP)?
I'd rather have some wiggle room in case problems are found on
either side; so people can rollback one without affecting the
other(*).
It also relaxes things for distro packagers for coordinating
releases; in case there's other dependencies (whether human or
technical) which slow down the process.
(*) We may drop raindrops as a hard requirement for unicorn at
some point, too. The intended use case for counter sharing
across hundredes/thousands of workers on massively multicore
CPUs never surfaced.
--
unsubscribe: unicorn-public+unsubscr...@bogomips.org
archive: https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/
