Oh, somebody did see this :)
I'm also concerned that the running daemon considers the unique key to essentially be (task name, unique key) but the persistence implementations don't care about task name. But one thing at a time....
Rhett
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote: > Thanks! I believe you are right. I will try to take a look at this tomorrow. > > > -- > https://code.launchpad.net/~rhettg/gearmand/no-unique/+merge/16603 > You are the owner of lp:~rhettg/gearmand/no-unique. >
« Back to merge proposal
Oh, somebody did see this :)
I'm also concerned that the running daemon considers the unique key to
essentially be (task name, unique key) but the persistence
implementations don't care about task name. But one thing at a
time....
Rhett
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote: /code.launchpad .net/~rhettg/ gearmand/ no-unique/ +merge/ 16603
> Thanks! I believe you are right. I will try to take a look at this tomorrow.
>
>
> --
> https:/
> You are the owner of lp:~rhettg/gearmand/no-unique.
>