It's all good Phil :-) I'm glad you took the time to look things over.
Gary
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023, 5:18 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> Well, now I really do need to apologize. I looked carefully again at the
> japicmp report and now agree that it is best to leave things as they are.
> I don't think
Well, now I really do need to apologize. I looked carefully again at the
japicmp report and now agree that it is best to leave things as they are.
I don't think it is likely we will change the names again and this is what
deprecations are for. So as far as I am concerned, things are good to go.
Thanks for the update, no need to apologize :-)
Gary
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 6:31 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or
> convince myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the delay
>
> > On Sep 9, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Gary Gregory
Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or convince
myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the delay
> On Sep 9, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Where are we on a 2.12.0 release candidate?
>
> Gary
>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at
Hi Phil,
Where are we on a 2.12.0 release candidate?
Gary
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 changes, we
> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the
> keylock. I think I also
OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 changes, we
had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the
keylock. I think I also finally definitively fixed the root issue there.
The tricky bit about the numInterested tracking is that the counters are
Sounds good.
Gary
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 7:00 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now in
> the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good news is
> it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and
I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now in
the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good news is
it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and
earlier versions. I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and if it
