I really like the idea of goal-oriented releases. I've always felt
that artificial deadlines rarely improve the resultant code. My one
concern is some clarity around how long a given release will be
supported. People who use LTS releases of ATS on account of not having
the resources to keep constan
+1
While Slack isn't my favourite, I think the benefits outweigh the
costs. One of the biggest costs is the archive search. You can either
use something like what IRC does, with a bot that archives, or a
solution like is used here: https://levels.io/slack-export-to-html/ .
(The latter approach req
I've been toying with Rust plugins for ATS, but certainly nothing in
production. It's worth considering, though, that the plugin
architecture is specifically designed so that users can keep their
plugins private if they wish, so there may be some plugins we don't
know about out there. If we make a
+1, and I'd like to register particular satisfaction that
cache_promote has been used frequently enough that it is being
promoted. :D
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:52 AM Bryan Call wrote:
>
> +1
>
> -Bryan
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > from the sprin
I'm +1. We're just a couple changesets behind the 7.1.3 tag itself,
but we've got almost our entire prod CDN running well on it. We are
seeing two somewhat infrequent cores, but there's no evidence that
they're new in this release. This is a solid improvement over the
previous release.
On Tue, Apr
+1
On Thu, May 3, 2018, 9:50 AM shinr...@ieee.org wrote:
> +1
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Derek Dagit
> wrote: +1 to remove it.
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> > I don’t think this script has a purpose any more, and
+1
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Steven R. Feltner wrote:
> +1
>
> On 5/8/18, 9:01 AM, "Alan Carroll" wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:00 AM, Bryan Call wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Bryan
> >
> > > On May 7, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> > >
The PR is here: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/3638
This is an API change, so I'm bringing it up. Previously, these
functions were returning -1 in an unsigned type: size_t. They got
these size_t values from regular integers, ensuring that not only was
an oversized type misleading cal
cache_promote - +0, no opinion
cachekey, +1
ts_lua, +1
(and rename to lua), +1
escalate, +0
rm epic, +0
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Gancho Tenev wrote:
> +1
>
>
>> On May 7, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as discussed today, we’d like to propose the following plu
;> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> — Leif
>>>>
>>>>> On May 12, 2018, at 11:40, Otto van der Schaaf
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
+1
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Gancho Tenev wrote:
> +1
>
>
>> On May 16, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Steven R. Feltner wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On 5/16/18, 9:45 AM, "Alan Carroll"
>> wrote:
>>
>>+1
>>
>>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Otto van der Schaaf
>>wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On
With all the benefits that come with 17, I think there's not a whole
lot of point looking backward on this one. There's enough OS support
that we can make it happen.
+1
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
>> > >> I would like to propose that we move to C++17 for ATS 8.0.0. Thi
So, I'd love to be +1 on kicking 6.2 to the curb.
But we've got a team using 6.2 that doesn't have immediate plans to
upgrade to 7. There's some relatively important stuff chilling out in
the pending release of 6.2 that will be fairly important. Am I the
only one?
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:50 PM,
if Hedstrom :
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2018, at 17:10, salil GK wrote:
>
> We too are in 6.2.2 and plans are in place to upgrade to 7.x in short
> while. But it may take some 3-4 months.
> I would love to see 6.2.2 support extend for another 6 months - ( is
> it too much expe
to see 6.2.2 support extend for another 6 months - ( is
> it too much expectation ! )
>
> I won’t oppose that, if there is a RM that is willing to do the work.
> Right now, I know of no active committers that are still on 6.x, and
> that’s
> a real problem.
>
> — Leif
>
> On
I've looked over the suggestion and there are a few things that
confuse me. The list of hosts is separate from the weights. Maybe just
make weight an optional element of a host? And the "protocol" is
storing information about both the schema and the port. What if it
looked something like this?
nam
We're currently running 7.1.4 in production on a fair number of hosts.
Everything looks good except for a regression in url_sig, which is
experimental. I've got a proposed fix for it at
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/4042 (it should
cherry-pick cleanly).
It's technically experimental
+1 on both points.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:53 PM Derek Dagit wrote:
>
> +1 for the rename
> +1 for adding the two new functions
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Alan Carroll <
> solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:18 PM Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> >
>
In the past, I've used JSON-RPC to good effect:
https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification
There are a bunch of things I like about it, but the biggest is that
it's exceedingly well-specified and very easy to implement. Requests
look like this:
{"jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "subtract", "params": [42, 2
Well, and this is a bit nit-picky, but the JSON-RPC spec does require
that a compliant implementation return a parse error if given invalid
JSON. We could relax that if we wish, but it feels like it invites
bugs.
Also, it looks like yaml-cpp does emit yaml that is not json:
https://github.com/jbed
Looks like your jansson (and probably also your cjose) is static, but
without -fPIC. You probably need either to compile them with -fPIC
statically (that's what we do) or to compile them as shared objects
only.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM Bryan Call wrote:
>
> It might be because you don’t ha
Generally, I want CI builds for my draft PR. If I break the build, I
want to know ideally before I ask folks to review it in earnest. As
long as I'm not pushing so frequently that I tie up the CI, it should
be ok, right?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:39 PM Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 20
22 matches
Mail list logo
