Who's in the mood for a new memcached release?

[Steven Grimm]

I notice that this release doesn't have our powers-of-N allocation 
change -- was there something wrong with it such that it wasn't 
appropriate to include in the release? It gives us substantially more 
efficient memory usage and doesn't really have a downside that I'm aware 
of (but maybe there's one I'm not aware of?)

-Steve


Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> There was a "bget" command (binary get) in trunk
> that had to be removed.  It's still in the 1.2.0-rc1, kinda, in that you
> can do "bget" which sets the binary flag, but the getter code doesn't do
> it now.
>
> We were doing that so C clients could be more efficient (and easier/safer
> to write).
>
> - Brad
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Steven Grimm wrote:
>
>   
>> What did you have to leave out due to conflicts?
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>> Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>     
>>> This is a merge of facebook's changes into the main version, with some
>>> of the new features that were conflicting removed, others partially
>>> still there, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> WARNING:  we're not using it in production.  I can't vouch for its
>>> quality.  Facebook can vouch for the version they used, but maybe I messed
>>> it up merging it in.  HERE BE DRAGONS.  Be scared.
>>>
>>> That said,
>>>
>>> http://www.danga.com/memcached/dist/experimental/memcached-1.2.0-rc1.tar.gz
>>>
>>> Notice the /experimental/ in the URL?  PACKAGERS:  Don't package this yet.
>>> It's a dev release.
>>>
>>> Everybody else:  bang on it.
>>>
>>> Let's find any issues and get a release out.  It's been too long, and I
>>> want to finish vbuckets, but want a stable tree to hack on.
>>>
>>> Also wanted:  benchmarks between this and last stable release.
>>>
>>> Feedback requested....
>>>
>>> - Brad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>