Tyler, It was uploaded originally in the following commit: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/16696/ dated Jul 25, 2012 4:11 PM by Aaron Schulz.
The only thing that I did was to break it off into a separate commit: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/36801/ So, the point that I was attempting to make was that it in unaltered form was available for review for; 132 days or 4 months, 9 days. The mistake that I made was that I didn't use Forge Author and Forge Committer access control rights in Gerrit. As, well as NOT adding it to the auto loader initially. — Patrick On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 | [email protected] > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
