I found that there so many code breaking our coding style, such as "tailing
spaces", "beyond 80 characters per line".
I suggest add a tool, like
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/scripts/checkpatch.pl, to
help developers self checking before sending/merging patches.
On Fri, Mar 8, 20
Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
other composed primitives from an active community for free.
On Mar 8, 2013 12:49 AM, "John Plevyak" wrote:
> I'll take a look. I was thinking we should make this move. Glad to see
> it.
> On Mar 7, 2013 9:13 PM, "Brian G
On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
other composed primitives from an active community for free.
I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both agreed it'd be desirable
to use this instead of rolling our own
On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
> I found that there so many code breaking our coding style, such as "tailing
> spaces", "beyond 80 characters per line".
Trailing spaces is bad, but our coding standard allows long lines. Limiting to
80 characters is lame and outdated IMO. :)
--
+1
On Mar 8, 2013 6:39 AM, "Leif Hedstrom" wrote:
> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>
>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>>
>
> I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both
I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage of
what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11 checks
in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard of
concurrencykit until now. I know TBB isn't really an option, but has
anyone compared the
On 3/8/13 9:50 AM, Brian Geffon wrote:
I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage of
what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11 checks
in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard of
concurrencykit until now. I know TBB isn't reall
- Original Message -
> On 3/8/13 9:50 AM, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage
> > of
> > what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11
> > checks
> > in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard
My only concern with concurrencykit is the use of hazard pointers, it's my
understanding that hazard pointers are patented by IBM:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040107227?printsec=description#v=onepage&q&f=false
Brian
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Me
On 08/03/2013, at 6:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>
> I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both agree
On 08/03/2013, at 1:10 PM, James Peach wrote:
> On 08/03/2013, at 6:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>>
>>
Since it it is under the simplified BSD, we can simply not include the
hazard pointer files to avoid any potential problem.
john
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Brian Geffon wrote:
> My only concern with concurrencykit is the use of hazard pointers, it's my
> understanding that hazard pointers
Hi all,
we had some good discussions on where we are today with 3.3.x, and how to
get to v3.4.0 at the latest ApacheCon. This is a summary of what we want to
achieve. Please read and comment.
Thanks,
-- leif and everyone who went to ACNA :)
Releases
=
Release date for v3.4.0: June - J
13 matches
Mail list logo
