adds feature gated code to drop legacy shreds#34328
adds feature gated code to drop legacy shreds#34328behzadnouri merged 1 commit intosolana-labs:masterfrom
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #34328 +/- ##
=========================================
- Coverage 81.9% 81.9% -0.1%
=========================================
Files 819 819
Lines 220530 220572 +42
=========================================
+ Hits 180786 180811 +25
- Misses 39744 39761 +17 |
behzadnouri
force-pushed
the
reject-turbine-legacy-shreds
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7ad9af0 to
4266ef5
Compare
behzadnouri
changed the title
|
Backports to the beta branch are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for fixing bugs, security issues, and perf regressions. Changes intended for backport should be structured such that a minimum effective diff can be committed separately from any refactoring, plumbing, cleanup, etc that are not strictly necessary to achieve the goal. Any of the latter should go only into master and ride the normal stabilization schedule. Exceptions include CI/metrics changes, CLI improvements and documentation updates on a case by case basis. |
t-nelson
left a comment
t-nelson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm assuming the comment is correct
| Some(feature_slot) => { | ||
| let feature_epoch = epoch_schedule.get_epoch(feature_slot); | ||
| let shred_epoch = epoch_schedule.get_epoch(shred_slot); | ||
| feature_epoch < shred_epoch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one epoch delay is intentional, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, at epoch boundary, if shreds are from the next epoch, we don't know if the feature is activated or not,
behzadnouri
force-pushed
the
reject-turbine-legacy-shreds
branch
from
4266ef5 to
c944cec
Compare
(cherry picked from commit d5eee01)
2 participants
Problem
Moving on from legacy shreds.
Summary of Changes
Added feature to drop legacy shreds.