Tomassino-ibm commented on PR #1919: URL: https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/1919#issuecomment-3045186583
> * Regarding the configs, they do look a bit strange to me, sharing paths where you would expect them to have their own paths. Changing this is a breaking change and would be better discussed as a standalone issue. We don't seem to get too many complaints so the issue doesn't seem to be affecting people too much in real world scenarios. Ok, I agree we can leave it like that in this pull request > * reordering the code to allow tailrec to work: this does come with risks. All we really have is our test coverage and if that passes then maybe we should be happy enough. But yes, the test coverage could be better. We have a config that controls whether the new code is applied. I wonder if the code path for when the config is set to keep the Pekko 1.0/1.1 (and Akka 2.6) behaviour, that we keep that code free of the tailrec refactor - ie we only try to make the new code path tail recursive and the old code path remains as similar as possible to the code that exists in the main branch prior to this PR. I have to admit that the code looks quite different anyway, so it is not evident that the "original" code path is maintained unchanged. I can try to make this more explicit, I'll try to push a new commit tomorrow -- 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 specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: notifications-h...@pekko.apache.org
