[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] small: unite the oscillation cache of all mempools

[Konstantin Osipov]

* Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko at tarantool.org> [20/01/30 17:38]:
> The processes were not better (at least) when you was manager here. Now
> you don't seat near us and have even less necessary context. Yep, I
> personally think that we should ignore your suggestions in this area.
> This is not a viewpoint of the company, it is my personal opinion.

This logic is flawed. If something was wrong before, no reason to
keep going like that now. 

> 
> And since DDL tests are entirely unrelated to this thread, it does not
> look as feedback, whose goal is to suggest us to raise priority of this
> issue. It is either emotions or attempt to present us is an unfavourable
> light (because of, again, emotions or business needs of your tarantool
> consulting, but likely the former).
> 
> Sorry if it looks offending.

It's not about "business" or "emotions" at all. I have been
suggesting before, that decisions like that should be taken by
maintainers, not managers.

This is a governance issue, and it is in the interest of everyone
if it is solved. Right now whatever decision
Kirill may take is by definition subjective, especially since
there is no public policy and the expertise in Mail.Ru is scarce.

> (I propose to don't continue this particular discussion, at least here.)

Well, I definitely don't want to discuss emotions. But I have been
repeatedly saying there should be a policy open to external
contributions that serves in the best interest of the project.

> > As I said, I don't think this tiny patch justifies it. 
> > The patch fixes a real issue that multiple users have hit.
> 
> This is one example of the bad processes that we had when you did work
> with us: 'Kostja said LGTM, so proper testing is not necessary'.

Not necessarily. You could make an internal review, like you do
with other patches that I LGTM.

> > If bench.tarantool.org was operational, it would be easy to see if
> > the patch has any impact on performance. This is the only remotely
> > relevant concern here.
> 
> Maybe. Black box testing is not always enough.
> 
> > 
> > Meanwhile, if you wish to ignore it because it doesn't come with a
> > testing infrastructure - it's up to you.
> 
> I had asked for a workload that can show gains under manual run at
> least. Not a testing infrastructure.

Obviously that wasn't clear. Such a workload is easy to build.

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia