132 days? It was uploaded onto Gerrit just recently. Many of the people here (including myself) only get notice of changes if it's discussed on the mailing list or if a change is uploaded to Gerrit.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <prei...@wikimedia.org>wrote: > There were 132 days for anybody to review and comment on the technical > approach in the UID class. > > — Patrick > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Aaron Schulz <aschulz4...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Some notes (copied from private email): > > * It only creates the lock file the first time. > > * The functions with different bits are not just the same thing with more > > bits. Trying to abstract more just made it more confusing. > > * The point is to also have something with better properties than uniqid. > > Also I ran large for loops calling those functions and timed it on my > laptop > > back when I was working on that and found it reasonable (if you needed to > > insert faster you'd probably have DB overload anyway). > > * hostid seems pretty common and is on the random wmf servers I tested a > > while back. If there is some optimization there for third parties that > don't > > have it, of course it would be welcomed. > > ---- > > At any rate, I changed the revert summary though Timo beat me to actually > > merging the revert. My main issue is the authorship breakage and the fact > > that the "split of" change wasn't +2'd by a different person. I was also > > later asked to add tests (36816), which should ideally would have been > > required in the first patch rather than as a second one; not a big deal > but > > it's a plus to consolidating the changes after a revert. > > > > That said, the change was actually a class split off verbatim from > > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/16696/ (which was pending for ages), > so > > it's not like the change was in gerrit for a split-second and then > merged. I > > think the process should have been better here though it's not a huge > deal > > as it may seem at first glance. > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/Really-Fast-Merges-tp4990838p4990911.html > > Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
