Broken umem storage #2147
Labels
No labels
a=ActionBeforeRelease
a=Bugwash Today
a=Implement
a=Move To VIP
a=NextVCL
a=OK'ed
a=RunByUPLEX
a=VDD
a=duplicate
a=feedback please
a=freeze
a=help wanted
a=invalid
a=last call
a=more-info-needed
a=need bugwash
b=breaking
b=bug
b=cleanup
b=enhancement
c=H/2
c=build
c=doc
c=packaging
c=varnishadm
c=varnishapi
c=varnishd
c=varnishhist
c=varnishlog
c=varnishncsa
c=varnishstat
c=varnishtest
c=varnishtop
c=vmod
r=6.0
r=7.0
r=7.1
r=7.2
r=7.3
r=7.4
r=7.5
r=8.0
r=trunk
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
vinyl-cache/vinyl-cache#2147
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I broke the build on SunOS platforms after fiddling [1] with the build system. Even after fixing [2] my mistake it stayed broken:
The code is still using an
MTXmacro that was removed in 2008 [3] so I'm assuming that it hasn't been compiled for a most of the project's lifetime. I think it's [1] that fixedlibumemdetection.[1]
d6216cc[2]
6550d4b[3]
6952977FWIW, we could also have
umemon other systems: https://github.com/omniti-labs/portableumemAlthough, I'm not sure how relevant this is, considering it hasn't been used in Varnish for at least 8 years.
@Dridi as discussed on IRC; thank you for exposing this issue which you didn't cause but rather made visible
Considering this has been broken and unnoticed for ETOOLONG, shouldn't we just kill the code?
If anyone wants to fix it the code is still available.
@fgsch yes, open tickets which are not being actively worked on are something we should avoid.
I'm OK with closing it, but I actually DO want to work on it when I can.
I was talking about the code, not the ticket.
Having broken code that nobody is working on (and has not been used for a very long time) does not make any sense to me. If someone feels like fixing it we can add it back once it's working.
yes you are right, but my response would be the same re the code.
The fact that the code has been dead for the last 8 years should be enough to consider a rewrite from scratch when umem is reintroduced. The stevedore API changed a couple times since then, collateral APIs have probably changed too (at least locks did) and there's also this idea of having storage modules.
So I say we prune it, and it's either reintroduced as a simple storage or as the first in-tree module.
I vote kill
Kill it is and should arrive at GH and your friendly mirrors shortly.