[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] build: disable LUAJIT_ENABLE_PAIRSMM

[Konstantin Osipov]

* Igor Munkin <imun at tarantool.org> [20/02/20 23:57]:
> > This is pathetic. Don't you realize that once a version is
> > released and declared stable, it's a legacy you have to live with?

> 
> As we announced the patch was applied by mistake. If you found the place
> we missed, please show it. If you want to complain and blame someone,
> feel free to choose me, since I initially proposed this amiss and
> breaking solution in #4560[1]. Unfortunately this doesn't make the
> situation easier for both of us.

It's not a blame in this case, I simply reply to a commit I have a
chance to reply to.  The revert commit went in without any
discussion on the list and without a code review.

I looked at 4560 now and realized that the incompatible change was
added to 1.10 as well. Ugh. I guess then it's definitely correct
to revert it there... so I withdraw my suggestion to keep it.

> > Now you have *3* broken behaviours to support, instead of just
> > two. Some people will still use a version which they believe is
> > stable, and encounter strange failures.
> 
> I'm bad in math here, since I see only two behaviours: the old one and
> the broken one. Three would be if we settle the issue and save the
> introduced behaviour the way you proposed below. Then there will be:
> * working Tarantool w/o __pairs
> * broken Tarantool w/ __pairs
> * working Tarantool w/ __pairs

Well, I simply count before-during-after, I'm not that
sophisticated here.

> > Eventually you'll have to enable 5.2 compatibility anyway (are you
> > going to stay with 5.1 forever??), and then break it again.
> 
> I can't answer it now. You are the visionary, I'm even not a mainainer.

1) Nobody is a maintainer, even the people who push patches.
   Maintenance in particular includes assuming personal public
   responsibility in the community for one's work. Maintenance
   also is not something assigned by a management, it has to be 
   supported by contributions to the code base and recognized by
   peers.

2) If Tarantool sticks to the release policy, there won't be any
   other window to introduce __pairs till 3.x, which is still a
   few years ahead. This is what drives me crazy - I thought you
   only pushed it to 2.x and in that case the patch definitely
   should have stayed.

> We discussed it in tg chat some time ago but I haven't been answered the
> question about your vision of this question. I welcome you to proceed
> the discussion and you can choose the most convenient way for it.

> > luafun is a builtin and table.deepcopy are builtins. What prevented you from fixing them 
> > instead?
> > That would fix 99% of cases. 
> 
> I see no guarantees here, and guess you can provide nothing.

I agree, but I trust our test coverage.

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia