Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

No longer use deprecated generators. #108

Merged

Conversation

cmeiklejohn
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
{mode, max}.

{duration, 10}.
{duration, 5}.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any reason to change this? I agree 10 min is too long :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That was a mistake. Nice catch.

@kuenishi
Copy link
Contributor

kuenishi commented Nov 5, 2013

Other changes looks good. +1 to merge.

cmeiklejohn added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2013
…n-warnings

No longer use deprecated generators.
@cmeiklejohn cmeiklejohn merged commit 597d0f1 into basho:master Nov 5, 2013
@cmeiklejohn cmeiklejohn deleted the bugfix/csm/remove-deprecation-warnings branch November 5, 2013 15:42
@slfritchie
Copy link
Contributor

Hm, I'd meant to chime in with something, better late than never?

Was the choice of 'int_to_bin_littleendian' for backward compatibility? Most folks are probably thinking that they should use the 'int_to_bin_bigendian' generator, to create keys like <<0,0,0,0,1>> through <<0,0,200,42>>, because only Intel x86 gearheads think that littleendian is normal. :-)

@cmeiklejohn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, I was under the impression that littleendian was the correct choice, because that was what the current Intel processors were, did I make a mistake?

@kuenishi
Copy link
Contributor

kuenishi commented Nov 6, 2013

Oh crap, bigendian would be suitable because it preserves the order of
integers, though not knowing specific case we need sort ordering preserved.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Christopher Meiklejohn wrote:

Ah, I was under the impression that littleendian was the correct choice,
because that was what the current Intel processors were, did I make a
mistake?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/108#issuecomment-27831766
.

Sent from Gmail Mobile

@cmeiklejohn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should we revert?

@kuenishi
Copy link
Contributor

kuenishi commented Nov 6, 2013

Not a strong opinion, but I think so. Sorry for wrong +1.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Christopher Meiklejohn wrote:

Should we revert?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/108#issuecomment-27835570
.

Sent from Gmail Mobile

kuenishi added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2013
…precation-warnings"

This reverts commit 597d0f1, reversing
changes made to f715c27.
kuenishi added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2013
@kuenishi
Copy link
Contributor

kuenishi commented Nov 6, 2013

see #109.

kuenishi added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2013
retry #108: No longer use deprecated generators.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants