Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#71

Post by nknight » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 1:36 AM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #20

jrockway wrote: post #3

Embrace, extend, extinguish. Does Redis still do that thing where it forks and the child writes its core to disk? How does that work under Windows, which doesn't have fork? Finally, this is one big patch: 339 files changed, 146821 insertions(+), 290 deletions(-) With many of the changes along the lines of: static void *callbackValDup(void *privdata, const void *src) { - ((void) privdata); redisCallback *dup = malloc(…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but casting the result of malloc is generally considered bad form in C, isn't it?

I wouldn't so much call it "bad form" as just non-idiomatic. It doesn't really have big downsides in practice.

It's mostly a habit people pick up from C++ (where it's mandatory due to stricter typing), and if you want to build C code with a C++ compiler, you need to add the casts.

Given Microsoft's C++ fetish, I'm unsurprised by this.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#72

Post by mythz » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 1:41 AM UTC

d0mine wrote: post #66

mythz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they're selfishly motivated - everyone is. The point is this time Redis/NoSQL stands to benefit as well.

It seems you've skipped the sentence: If, in the end, Redis' codebase becomes cluttered and performance and maintenance suffer, we all lose.

That's a case for not merging, not for a parallel win32-based project - which this implementation could serve either of.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#73

Post by Gigablah » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #70

Legion wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think patch versus pull request is a valid complaint, but there's absolutely no reason to be snarky about it. Everything else just reeks of MS bashing that reinforces the negative view of the open source crowd that many on the MS side of the divide have. Github is looking to pull the Windows crowd into their world; on the blog, they stated that as an explicit goal for their hiring of Phil Haack. So, please, play ni…

The complaint about the size is most certainly not just "MS bashing". Dumping massive flawed pieces of code on people out of the blue and expecting them to be grateful is bad form, no matter who you are. Unfortunately this seems to be Microsoft's MO.

How are the MS people who submitted the patch "expecting" others to be "grateful"?

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#74

Post by mindstab » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 2:03 AM UTC

briancurtin wrote: post #26

splitbrain wrote: post #4

A patch file in a gist instead of a pull request? sigh

It's really no wonder why people don't contribute to open source when this is the first response.

And if someone previously uninvolved with your work showed up one day and dumped a few weeks of a teams work in your lap in one giant patch that affected most of your codebase, you'd say thanks and look to merging it in rather than talk about proper process?

Most projects have a process and gigantic monolithic patches that include entire new projects and "cleanup" updates to core all wrapped up in one are unmanaged and unmergable. It's for the sake of process.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#75

Post by burgerbrain » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 2:06 AM UTC

Gigablah wrote: post #73

burgerbrain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complaint about the size is most certainly not just "MS bashing". Dumping massive flawed pieces of code on people out of the blue and expecting them to be grateful is bad form, no matter who you are. Unfortunately this seems to be Microsoft's MO.

How are the MS people who submitted the patch "expecting" others to be "grateful"?

Perhaps they are not, but the people complaining about "snark" are what I am talking about.

Anyway, my point is that complaints about the size are very valid.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#76

Post by blhack » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 2:10 AM UTC

yread wrote: post #28

Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the amount of snark ("eww it's 140k lines", "mini git tutorial", "patch file instead of pull request"). It seems it's so big because it contains the libuv. The instructions to compile on Windows don't seem trivial at all and if I cared enough to try this I would appreciate that they wrote it step-by-step. The guys at MS just sat down and made it work while antirez was throwing out sugges…

If anybody, like me, was curious what a "pull request" is[1]:

You fork the repo, submit a patch to that, then ask that the maintainer(s) of the original repo "pull" your code into theirs.

[1]http://help.github.com/send-pull-requests/

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#77

Post by jroseattle » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 2:43 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #46

mythz wrote: post #40

The snark on this thread is concerning, Microsoft has made a good gesture in trying improve the Redis story on Windows and IMO it's something we all should be encouraging as it can only serve to improve the Redis ecosystem. Historically Microsoft hasn't been too fond of NoSQL but positive steps like this validates Redis in the eyes of Windows devs which has the potential to attract new devs to the world of Redis and…

> Microsoft has made a good gesture When on the other hand they are poisoning the Android/Linux ecosystem with FUD, patent extortion and the like. While I would prefer the discussion to stay civil and technical, Microsoft is consistently earning every snark they are receiving, and then some.

Don't confuse Microsoft's teams with the flatulating buttheads in the executive office. Most of the people working there now weren't around when MS was a dominant company.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#78

Post by moe » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 2:43 AM UTC

Legion wrote: post #63

yread wrote: post #28

Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the amount of snark ("eww it's 140k lines", "mini git tutorial", "patch file instead of pull request"). It seems it's so big because it contains the libuv. The instructions to compile on Windows don't seem trivial at all and if I cared enough to try this I would appreciate that they wrote it step-by-step. The guys at MS just sat down and made it work while antirez was throwing out sugges…

I think patch versus pull request is a valid complaint, but there's absolutely no reason to be snarky about it. Everything else just reeks of MS bashing that reinforces the negative view of the open source crowd that many on the MS side of the divide have. Github is looking to pull the Windows crowd into their world; on the blog, they stated that as an explicit goal for their hiring of Phil Haack. So, please, play ni…

no reason to be snarky

Really?

Until very recently Microsoft did actively fight the OSS movement with claws and teeth. Now they suddenly embrace us and we're not even allowed to be snarky?

Sentiments aside; as Antirez points out, supporting a win32-port would be a ball on a chain. If Microsoft really suddenly wants to be friends then they should step up and maintain a fork on their own budget instead of throwing a half-baked patch on the floor and expecting someone else to gift ongoing support to a for-profit company.

Otherwise, in my very personal opinion, they can just go to hell.

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#79

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 3:17 AM UTC

to3m wrote: post #32

yread wrote: post #28

Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the amount of snark ("eww it's 140k lines", "mini git tutorial", "patch file instead of pull request"). It seems it's so big because it contains the libuv. The instructions to compile on Windows don't seem trivial at all and if I cared enough to try this I would appreciate that they wrote it step-by-step. The guys at MS just sat down and made it work while antirez was throwing out sugges…

I couldn't be bothered with writing a rant, so I'm glad somebody put the effort in. You're right... it's a bit off. Just a chance for people to feel superior over the Windoze lusers, I guess :) I trust that the people behind the patch have got from it what they want, and that if the patch is just sent straight to the recycle bin then it will be no skin off their collective noses.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support

#80

Post by rbanffy » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 3:33 AM UTC

mythz wrote: post #72

d0mine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you've skipped the sentence: If, in the end, Redis' codebase becomes cluttered and performance and maintenance suffer, we all lose.

That's a case for not merging, not for a parallel win32-based project - which this implementation could serve either of.

It would risk diverting attention from the Unix port to the Win32 one. Even if the Redis developers don't pay attention to this distraction, its mere existence fragments the codebase and creates two semi-compatible versions.

And if the Windows version sucks badly, any Windows user who tries to install it on Windows will end up blaming Redis and try something else. On Windows.

Microsoft wins and we lose on all scenarios.