Blocking queue (from @cypof, with modifications)#2167
Closed
longjon wants to merge 3 commits intoBVLC:masterfrom
Closed
Blocking queue (from @cypof, with modifications)#2167longjon wants to merge 3 commits intoBVLC:masterfrom
longjon wants to merge 3 commits intoBVLC:masterfrom
Conversation
longjon
force-pushed
the
blocking-queue
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cb80038 to
72dabac
Compare
Member
|
@longjon author info is fine, thanks. I will fix my config for future commits. |
Contributor
|
@longjon you may want to add a |
Closed
Member
|
Closing as replaced by #4563 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the blocking queue taken from the parallel branch, modified to remove some features and add others. (By the way, I looked for a more "standard" implementation of this, e.g., in boost, but did not find one.)
I'll splitting this out from a future PR for easier review. There's no need to consider it until that PR is also agreed upon, since this serves no other purpose yet.
@cypof, as with #2067, let me know that the author information is as you prefer.