3 ms·
I would treat this as a great bug report. Aphyr has done a lot of work, showing that a (reasonable to me) formal interpretation of your gist produces catastrop
by justinsb 13y ago
I would treat this as a great bug report. Aphyr has done a lot of work, showing that a (reasonable to me) formal interpretation of your gist produces catastrophically bad results.
If you're unhappy with the formal interpretation of your gist, publishing the formal interpretation you intended (or, better yet, code) would allow others to build the system you actually intended.
- antirez 13y ago1) The thing that Aphyr tested is not the gist. 2) There was never any plan for it to go inside the Redis implementation. This was just an argument in a mailing list to show that synchronous replication as implemented by WAIT is dependent on the rest of the system. What bug report we are talking about?
- justinsb 13y agoI was saying that the blog post is the best bug report I've ever seen. To extend the analogy: in my mind, the way you're treating it is like closing it as "INVALID" without any comment, which tends to annoy bug reporters :-) If your argument is #1 (that Aphyr tested the wrong thing), then a reasonable reply would be to provide the model you did intend. If you tested it as well, that would be great, but it is reasonable to require the "bug submitter" to retest. If your argument is #2 (that WAIT is just best-effort replication, and that it does not provide any guarantees) then that's fine, just say so clearly. But you should then stop disputing the model that Aphyr tested, because to do so implies the existence of a model which does provide guarantees.