hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854 can the people involved in the discussion let me know what is the cs that should be considered at the end?
Tim, alexander, david, lex....
Stef
Actually I don't have to add more to the subject than I have said in my last but one comment on the bug, which is in short: Leave Class Delay as it is, only protect the primitive against bad parameters. And that's what my changeset does.
Alex
stéphane ducasse schrieb:
hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854 can the people involved in the discussion let me know what is the cs that should be considered at the end?
Tim, alexander, david, lex....
Stef
This one CheckInitialDelayTime-854-v4-laza.2.cs [^] (3,766 bytes) 02-12-05 12:52 ?
Stef
On 1 oct. 05, at 21:22, Alexander Lazarević wrote:
Actually I don't have to add more to the subject than I have said in my last but one comment on the bug, which is in short: Leave Class Delay as it is, only protect the primitive against bad parameters. And that's what my changeset does.
Alex
stéphane ducasse schrieb:
hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854 can the people involved in the discussion let me know what is the cs that should be considered at the end?
Tim, alexander, david, lex....
Stef
Yes, I think this is what we agreed.
Dave
p.s. Thanks Alex.
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 09:55:04PM +0200, stéphane ducasse wrote:
This one CheckInitialDelayTime-854-v4-laza.2.cs [^] (3,766 bytes) 02-12-05 12:52 ?
Stef
On 1 oct. 05, at 21:22, Alexander LazareviÄ wrote:
Actually I don't have to add more to the subject than I have said in my last but one comment on the bug, which is in short: Leave Class Delay as it is, only protect the primitive against bad parameters. And that's what my changeset does.
Alex
stéphane ducasse schrieb:
hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854 can the people involved in the discussion let me know what is the cs that should be considered at the end?
Tim, alexander, david, lex....
Stef
Hi all
tim issue another way to fix extra long delays http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1840
I harvested http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1840 in script 5 as agreed and it should be now in 6695. Now it would be good if you could give feedback to tim suggestion.
Stef
Yes, I think this is what we agreed.
Dave
p.s. Thanks Alex.
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 09:55:04PM +0200, stéphane ducasse wrote:
This one CheckInitialDelayTime-854-v4-laza.2.cs [^] (3,766 bytes) 02-12-05 12:52 ?
On 1-Oct-05, at 10:38 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854
Sorry for the long delay (such irony!) but I have a proposed changeset that I claim is better solution since it makes minimal changes and yet allows for very long Delays.
Since the Mantis report is closed and I can't see how to open it again, I'll simply attach the tiny file.
tim
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 14:21 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Am 04.10.2005 um 02:40 schrieb tim Rowledge:
Since the Mantis report is closed and I can't see how to open it again [...]
I think simply adding a note to a closed issue will re-open it.
- Bert -
Actually, I don't think Tim is even being offered the opportunity to add a note. I've had this reported before that the 'Add Note' section doesn't appear for anyone below Manager (Developer?) level once an issue has been closed.
Actually in my opinion it's probably not the best idea to reopen issue 854. It has gone through it's full cycle including Stephane having harvested it just 2 days ago. I think it would be confusing to start it over again. At this point I think Tim would need to provide a changeset/mcz to replace the already harvested fixes and that should be submitted as a new issue and that new issue should be marked as related to 854.
Ken
On 4-Oct-05, at 8:47 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 14:21 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Am 04.10.2005 um 02:40 schrieb tim Rowledge:
Since the Mantis report is closed and I can't see how to open it again [...]
I think simply adding a note to a closed issue will re-open it.
- Bert -
Actually, I don't think Tim is even being offered the opportunity to add a note. I've had this reported before that the 'Add Note' section doesn't appear for anyone below Manager (Developer?) level once an issue has been closed.
That seems to be the case - I did try to add a note but to no avail.
Actually in my opinion it's probably not the best idea to reopen issue 854. It has gone through it's full cycle including Stephane having harvested it just 2 days ago. I think it would be confusing to start it over again. At this point I think Tim would need to provide a changeset/mcz to replace the already harvested fixes and that should be submitted as a new issue and that new issue should be marked as related to 854.
I concur. I'll open a new report and include the simple suggestion first before worrying about replacing code. I've found some other places in the Delay code that seem to need tweaking as well.
tim
Mantis report 1840 is now open for comment on this issue. With some valuable assistance from John we've been able to demonstrate the basic validity of the idea and can handle long Delays.
tim
Hi tim
david told me that and I reopened the issue. I guess that david submitted a new version of his code. So the point is please decide between us and we will push what the group is the best.
Stef
On 4 oct. 05, at 02:40, tim Rowledge wrote:
On 1-Oct-05, at 10:38 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
hi all
I need feedback on http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=854
Sorry for the long delay (such irony!) but I have a proposed changeset that I claim is better solution since it makes minimal changes and yet allows for very long Delays.
Since the Mantis report is closed and I can't see how to open it again, I'll simply attach the tiny file.
<LongDelayFixes-tpr.1.cs.gz>
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alexander Lazarević -
Bert Freudenberg -
David T. Lewis -
Ken Causey -
stéphane ducasse -
tim Rowledge