Greetings,
* Jim Finnerty (jfinnert@amazon.com) wrote:
> I was thinking about this last night and I realized that putting the new
> hasModifiedDistinct flag on the PlannerInfo struct eliminates the need to
> deal with the serialization issues, and makes it simpler.
>
> Here's a new patch (v7) that puts the bool on the PlannerInfo struct, and
> adds a couple of tests.
>
> re: why did you apply the patch on v10?
>
> I'm developing on a v10.5 codebase at the moment, though this will change
> soon. If the v7 patch doesn't apply cleanly on later versions, please let
> me know and I'll fix it.
Just going back through this thread to check that I didn't miss
anything, I saw this and felt it deserved a comment- please don't post
feature patches like this against existing released versions and then
ask everyone else to see if it works against current head or not. We're
all for having new contributors of features, but those contributions
should be against the current HEAD.
> re: if you're proposing the patch for v12, why do you care about catversion?
>
> Only because it would be a problem to test the patch on 10.5 with a
> catversion change that wouldn't come until v12. With the v7 patch this
> issue is moot because it no longer requires a catversion change.
This would be an example of concerns that really shouldn't be getting
raised on this list for new features. The project has a very clear
policy regarding features vs. bug-fixes and I really don't think it's
necessary or desirable to have patches being floated with subsequent
threads here which go directly against that policy.
Thanks!
Stephen
