Re: slotmem + balancer
> On May 20, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now we are back to 2.4.29 code, r1822341 is in again, and I committed
> additional changes (minimal hopefully) to address the issues reported
> in PR 62308 (and PR 62044 still). My own testing, based on the tests
> run by the OP (his on Windows, mine on Linux), all passes right now.
> So I'm waiting for the OP's latest results to propose a backport.
> WDYT of this approach (and patches), do it sound better?
It does and I appreciate you taking the time and effort not only on the code but also with this most excellent email!
Sorry I was such a "stickler" about all this... most of it is due to the resistance in large scale code changes being done which try to address separate issues in one large chunk. Past history w/i the project have shown that, in general, these cause more harm than good because too much is changed in one go, making it difficult to more realistically assess the impacts. So when I see these big refactors, I tend to recall the risk and have a semi-immediate knee-jerk about them.