| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins |
| 2 |
<rafaelmartins@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Alex Brandt <alunduil@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 23:06:29 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Hello, Python team and other nice people. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> I'd like to discuss the topic of parallel runs again. While it |
| 8 |
>> sounded |
| 9 |
>>> like a good idea at first, I have my doubts now. I'll try to |
| 10 |
>> shortly |
| 11 |
>>> describe the implementation, then recollect the advantages |
| 12 |
>>> and disadvantages of it. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> What are your thoughts? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Based on your excellent set of points (dropped for length) I'd |
| 17 |
>> vote for dropping the parallel phases and making things work as |
| 18 |
>> expected rather than faster. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> +1 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I agree with dropping parallel phases. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It was an interesting experiment, but I agree that we should aim to |
| 27 |
simplify things here. As a developer, I usually find my self disabling |
| 28 |
it when trying to reproduce bugs anyway. |
Archives