On 2017/12/15 3:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/11, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2017/12/1 15:36, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> This is really hard to review and risky a lot to apply it shortly. Do we
>>> have a
>>
>> I can understand your concern.
>>
>>> strong reason we have t
On 12/11, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/12/1 15:36, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > This is really hard to review and risky a lot to apply it shortly. Do we
> > have a
>
> I can understand your concern.
>
> > strong reason we have to do this? The original design goal was to
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/12/1 15:36, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> This is really hard to review and risky a lot to apply it shortly. Do we have
> a
I can understand your concern.
> strong reason we have to do this? The original design goal was to minimize
> allocation delay which is almost zer
Hi Chao,
This is really hard to review and risky a lot to apply it shortly. Do we have a
strong reason we have to do this? The original design goal was to minimize
allocation delay which is almost zero for now. Of course, I agreed that there'd
be some trade-off though, we don't have a critical iss
4 matches
Mail list logo
