cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-822066953
I spotted this (refCount was not final), but will run your test tomorrow and
try to reproduce.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-822066751
@michael-o pls try now
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-822065281
@michael-o need to look into this, this should not be happening
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-819384263
@michael-o squashed. Please merge at will once your testing done (and
everything is OK).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-818891595
K, merged the "mini PR", I hope this addresses all your concerns.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-818693664
> I understand this now, but am not happy with for the following reasons: We
have a hard requirement on reentrancy, it is up to the lock to implement that
properly. If some
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-818667466
> There is one more thing I do not understand and think that this undermines
reentrancy: While I understand that you maintain a concurrent map in
`NamedLockFactorySupport`
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-818646120
@michael-o just my 5 cents: "long running PRs" (this one is slowly 1/2 year
old :smile: ) suffer from very same issues as "long running feature branches":
is easy to become
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-818103092
> I guess these lines should be written in every of our implementation where
a `TreeSet` is used otherwise this gets out of sight, out of mind.
I think Javadoc does
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-817984588
re formatting: the maven site exposed formatting rule for Idea IDE drives me
nuts, it is not aligned with checkstyle, so several "reformat" attempts, sorry
for that
--
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-811916624
@Tibor17 agreed, the use of atomic move in resolver is out of scope for this
PR.
Re atomic move, it was used throughout Proximity/Nexus/1/2 since Java7 came
out with
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-811824284
> A left a few comments, please go through.
>
> * I have a few more homework to do because I do not fully understand all
involved layers with
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-811791981
General remark: my personal preference for local variables is to declare
them as `T variable = new T()`, in cases when the variable is strictly local
scoped. I really see no
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-783973787
@michael-o ping
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-764908120
@michael-o @rmannibucau My proposal is to merge this PR, we already know
current master is broken (see MRESOLVER-153), and while in this PR I did
"return" (well, copied to
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-764908120
@michael-o @rmannibucau My proposal is to merge this PR, we already know
current master is broken (see MRESOLVER-153), and while in this PR I did
"return" (well, copied to
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-751683148
Howdy @rmannibucau
For now I consider both HZ and Redisson as "lab" implementation still, due
these:
* for HZ to work we either must use deprecated HZ 3.x call
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-731606060
That's right
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-731602192
3 nodes are required for CP only w/ Hazelcast 3.x cluster (RAFT consensus
backed structures), and yes, is overkill (but someone may choose to run a
"dedicated cluster" on CI
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-731601543
@michael-o Just go for it
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
cstamas commented on pull request #77:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/77#issuecomment-728320815
@michael-o Once you resolve all remaining conversations and have no more
remark/change req, I'll squash the commits into one, until then am leaving them
to be able to ref
21 matches
Mail list logo
