river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Release
Date Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:29:13 GMT
We created a "qa-refactoring" branch for concurrency work....mmmm....

On 3 April 2013 22:10, Peter <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:

> Not a good idea, the qa-refactoring branch was created recently to address
> the concurrency bugs in trunk.
>
> ----- Original message -----
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2013, at 750AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/04/2013 7:51 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 338AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The formatting didn't work out, I'll create a Jira issue to
> discuss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patricia's done a great job detailing the dependencies and issues
> with
> > > > > TaskManager's Task implementations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I recall a list discussion from the original Sun developers who had
> > > > > intended to replace TaskManager, the runAfter method has issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Being so prevalent, it's quite possible that TaskManager is
> causing issues
> > > > > and it might also explain why as performance improves more issues
> arise.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a task completes before another task which it's supposed to
> runAfter
> > > > > but isn't present in the queue; that could explain some issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > I much prefer idempotent code myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > This could take some effort to fix, any volunteers?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dennis are you able to continue with your 2.2.1 branch release?
> > > > At this point I am unsure what branch to base the 2.2.1 release off
> of.
> > >
> > > The 2.2.0 release, it might benefit from backports of synchronization
> fixes
> > > that improve correctness, but not performance, if some volunteers can
> diff the
> > > qa-refactoring branch and the 2.2.0 branch, there are numerous simple
> > > synchronization fixes.
> >
> > I'd like to suggest we release from qa-trunk. With all the work thats
> been going
> > on here, I dont see back porting it to the 2.2 branch is meaningful. The
> delta
> > is just too much.
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message