On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
> If you don't mind, let's remove it until a user requests it. I hope I'm
> not being too negative here. :-)
>
Agreed. Thank you Matt for putting in the work but this one might fall in
the YAGNI category ;-)
Gary
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On
Not at all; I think you're right. It's a confusing option.
On 17 June 2016 at 21:17, Remko Popma wrote:
> If you don't mind, let's remove it until a user requests it. I hope I'm
> not being too negative here. :-)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2016/06/18, at 11:08, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Honest
If you don't mind, let's remove it until a user requests it. I hope I'm not
being too negative here. :-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2016/06/18, at 11:08, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Honestly, the only reason I added it here was because it's available. I do
> know that concurrency fairness is almost
Honestly, the only reason I added it here was because it's available. I do
know that concurrency fairness is almost always the wrong thing to do,
though. I can remove it.
On 17 June 2016 at 20:50, Remko Popma wrote:
> Is there any reason to expose fairness as a user configurable parameter?
>
> T
Is there any reason to expose fairness as a user configurable parameter?
The thing is that it sounds like a good thing (so users are likely to switch it
on) but actually hampers performance and in our case there's no real reason to
require fairness...
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2016/06/18, at 9
