On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: In fact, I'm tired of repeating this problem, so I started a change to actually enforce this policy[0]. We'll probably need to tweak it further to allow for the exceptions we actually want. Review welcome. -Chad [0] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/36815/

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:37:02 -0800, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: Doesn't TWN's bot self-review? Might need to add an exception for that before merging.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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(a)gmail.com On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <preilly(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Why do you need a UID? The autoincrement id we use in most tables can (should) serve as UID. It needs a little care when sending the inserts, but it's straighforward. It can easily be done by a layer on top of our db classes (transparent to the application). What table were you planning to partition (and how) that you can't use the id for the partitioning?

There were 132 days for anybody to review and comment on the technical approach in the UID class. — Patrick