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 tylerromeo@gmail.com 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 | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Patrick Reilly preilly@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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 aschulz4587@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