yosafbridge has quit [*.net *.split]
lucerne has quit [*.net *.split]
yosafbridge has joined #jruby
subbu has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
subbu has joined #jruby
drbobbeaty has joined #jruby
subbu has quit [Quit: Leaving]
sagax has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
<headius> Matt Welke: it might be in jruby-base now
<headius> we restructured release artifacts so that jruby-base is just JRuby itself, jruby-core is a shaded version of jruby-base with all Java dependencies, and jruby-complete is jruby-core plus the Ruby libraries
<headius> I just triggered it to process jruby-base so it should show up there soon
sagax has joined #jruby
<MattWelke[m]> nice, ty. I'll be looking at the Java docs this weekend if I play around with the Java extension stuff we talked about earlier this week.
<MattWelke[m]> I see base, but not core or complete yet. Looks like it's working in the background.
<headius> yeah those other two probably won't have any docs
<headius> core just adds third-party libs to the jar and complete adds Ruby libraries that we don't generate docs for
<MattWelke[m]> oh true
<MattWelke[m]> then I'm all set
<MattWelke[m]> When I click the link from the website, it brings me to https://javadoc.io/doc/org.jruby/jruby which you're saying, will no longer show anything, right?
<MattWelke[m]> I have to be aware that the docs are in jruby-base and change the dropdown to that to see the docs.
<headius> from our website?
<MattWelke[m]> Yep
<MattWelke[m]> How I find it last night was I started from jruby.org -> https://www.jruby.org/documentation
<headius> I'll fix that
<MattWelke[m]> And clicked "Browse JRuby API Javadocs online"
<MattWelke[m]> I saw an empty page, but I noticed if I went back two versions, I saw docs.
<MattWelke[m]> So I posted here.
<MattWelke[m]> Oh hold on, I'm wrong. The link brings you to core.
<MattWelke[m]> But, same idea. The link brings you to something that will as of now, never show anything.
<MattWelke[m]> So it's probably a better experience if the link is changed to jruby-base.
<headius> fixed, site should update shortly
<MattWelke[m]> tyvm
<headius> time for more tea
<headius> enebo: I will update jnr from 9.2 on down since is already spun
<enebo[m]> sure and it was branched before the last jnr update anyways
<headius> that will mean merging into 9.2 branch and from there to 9.3 etc so I will make sure the date fix is not clobbered in some weird way
subbu has joined #jruby
<headius> jnr releases are out, I'm going to start merging things around
<enebo[m]> ok
<enebo[m]> I can see where we go off the rails on prepend+include example
<headius> so to speak
<enebo[m]> we gather modules to include and when it gets to the prepended Enumerable it will say nah give me the real one
<enebo[m]> the real one has no methods in it
<enebo[m]> so this should not have anything to do with JI yet I have not done the proper magic yet to repro outside of it
<enebo[m]> gatherModule intentially skips prepended modules to get the real one
<enebo[m]> So I will quickly look but it is possible we are just not setting the included wrapper to get the proper method table
<headius> that would be a nice simple fix
<enebo[m]> Ah maybeing it should be getMethodLocation().getMethodForWrite!
<headius> ah yeah probably, since pre-3 we just want the module'
<enebo[m]> That will be funny if so since I have been literalling getMethodLocation everywhere
<headius> module's own method table
<headius> we don't care about other things in its hierarchy because we gather those separately
<enebo[m]> I think for 3 this is largely recording each of these wrappers updating them if anythign changes but those wrappers will get recorded in real module
<enebo[m]> which may be what you are saying
<headius> I was under the impression that they only have one wrapper but search the other hierarch when they get to it
<headius> rather than copying everything and trying to keep them in sync
<enebo[m]> I saw something which looked like it maintained a list
<enebo[m]> It has been a while
<enebo[m]> methods = origin.getOrigin().getMethodLocation().getMethodsForWrite();
<enebo[m]> SHIP IT :)
<enebo[m]> so methodlocation did not fix it directly
<enebo[m]> I should see what else happens now
<headius> if they are just tracking the original module better now then it will be a simpler change for us
<headius> yeah that seems like too many things 😀
<enebo[m]> I am just happy I made some progress
<enebo[m]> It is becoming clearer we are saying "include the real thing" but the real thing has gotten its methods replace with no methods because the prepended shim has them
<headius> right
<headius> usually that is the problem... still have code around not aware of prepend and not going to the new location for method table
<enebo[m]> Seems like real thing getMethodLocation should point to that so that is the confusion
<enebo[m]> yeah we still have a number of places but some are pretty primal where we are setting up the type
<enebo[m]> In my mind the optimization of not doing getMethodLocation in those cases are not worth it because this is too fragile
<enebo[m]> This fix breaks a single refinement spec which has a prepent
<enebo[m]> but I will restep through this. One thing I am starting to remember is one thing I "fixed" which did fix things was we were unconditionally passing realMod.getOrigin() into the wrapper instance
<enebo[m]> I can still see it in deprecated cases
<enebo[m]> we now pass in realMod.getDelegate() and that method is pretty unclear to me
<enebo[m]> Seemingly we only call it for included modules wrappers to get the proper module
<enebo[m]> So it is possible for prepends we maybe do something with getDelegate there as well
<enebo[m]> One more time through the debugger....
<enebo[m]> I was wrong. getOrigin wasn't needed there at all
<enebo[m]> Not sure what happened. Maybe the debugger did not pick up the change when I restarted
<enebo[m]> The fix actually makes sense but now I have to hope that refinment error dropped by removing the getOrigin
<headius> yeah I didn't think getOrigin was needed either
klobuczek[m] has quit [Quit: You have been kicked for being idle]
<enebo[m]> It can only make sense if the included wrapper receives an origin that is not the actual module
<enebo[m]> but we call realModule.getDelegate() which seems to only be different is we are including a module wrapper
<enebo[m]> So I am wondering if getDelegate actually does anything for this
<headius> these names are so confusing
<enebo[m]> yeah
<enebo[m]> I did add a nice comment for getOrigin
<enebo[m]> I believe I also removed all usages of getNonIncludedClass too
<enebo[m]> but getDelegate :)
<enebo[m]> This fix is obvious after the fact but it might make us realize a deficiency in our refinement impl
<headius> git st
<headius> blah
<enebo[m]> <some git output>
<headius> I am using an external monitor lately so I keep getting confused
<enebo[m]> That was my 'b' to you yesterday...I did C-X b
<enebo[m]> Luckily pidgin has no binding for control-x
<headius> oh hah
<enebo[m]> So this fixes the problem but introduces another where a refined method is called instead of a prepended one
<headius> hmm
<headius> pull one thread and another comes unraveled
<enebo[m]> which I guess would mean getOrigin on something refined maybe is not getting the prepended stuff but the refined stuff
<enebo[m]> err sorry not origin
<enebo[m]> getMethodLocation
<enebo[m]> I am going to start a branch on this since this is the right fix as it stands
<enebo[m]> We 100% were just looking at the prepend removed methods version of the module
<headius> jnr is in the pipeline now: https://github.com/jruby/jruby/pull/6953
<headius> is merged to jruby-9.2 also
<enebo[m]> let's finish that now
<enebo[m]> I need to update the dates on the website before I push
<headius> its merged and I will merge 9.2 to 9.3 etc now
<headius> and make sure 9.2 java changes for interruptibility don't land on 9.3
<enebo[m]> I am going to push site
<headius> I had to do a squashed merge to avoid the java changes, but there's very few commits merging over
<headius> for yeah?
<headius> and we still need to figure out refinement thing for 9.3.2?
<enebo[m]> yeah it was pushed yesterday except announcements
<enebo[m]> yeah 9.3.2 should have this fixed
<enebo[m]> And it would be nice if we didn't fix one thing to regress another
<headius> ok everything is merged and pushed up to 9.3
<enebo[m]> so I am hoping to figure this out today and we can talk tomorrow on how we feel
<headius> I will wait on merging to master until we have 9.3.2 ready
<enebo[m]> The regression fixed feels worse than what broke (refinements with a prepend in it)
<headius> should I not be worried that we'll have the date fix out for 9.2 but not 9.3?
<enebo[m]> err that was ambiguous...what I just fixed is more important than what it just broke
<headius> I just keep feeling like it is saying we patched this security issue in 9.2.x but you have to wait until tomorrow for the 9.3.x fix
<enebo[m]> nope
<headius> I agree with that
<enebo[m]> We will fix it soon but people already can know about the CVE
<headius> the prepend enumerable thing has broken a lot of people
<enebo[m]> so they are no worse off but if we release tomorrow it will be fine
<enebo[m]> I think most people are able to judge how important the date thing is too
<enebo[m]> but my position is we are already vuln in both so fixing one is better than holding off to get both out at same time
<enebo[m]> If we cannot figure out this regression by tomorrow we can also just put out a security fix too but I think this regression will affect more people than the CVE
<headius> yeah
<enebo[m]> HAHA I was like wtf...how could our site have changed since I pulled it yesterday but I see you fixed the javadocs
<enebo[m]> My first reaction was who the hell is hacking our site
<headius> oh heh yeah that was just me
<enebo[m]> headius: will you tweet + socials + docker + rbenv
<enebo[m]> I am emailing and will github release and notify release people
<headius> yeah you have my notes on the security release?
<enebo[m]> Site is live
<headius> ok I am prepping the socials
<enebo[m]> interesting no failures in test:mri with that patch just a single one in ruby/spec
<headius> like and subscribe
<enebo[m]> smack and favorite that shit
<enebo[m]> release out
<enebo[m]> on github
<headius> enebo: have you been updating rvm?
<headius> I don't remember doing that last release but maybe we added this task since then
<enebo[m]> no
<enebo[m]> HEH
<headius> aha
<headius> well I can add that to my list since I'm updating all the other crap
<headius> bleh of course rvm has no automated way to add a version
<headius> and it wants sha512 we don't publish
<headius> ok I think that's everything
<enebo[m]> yay
<headius> ok 9.3.2 next
<enebo[m]> yeah
<enebo[m]> I will make a branch and push my lone fix
<headius> ok
<headius> I'm not sure how critical this refinement regression is but we should try
<enebo[m]> yeah I am ok I think with switching the regressions but I would like to spend a few hours looking at it
<enebo[m]> well hopefully less but that is my time box
<headius> it's possible the failed spec was fixed by the broken change
<enebo[m]> I think prepending in an refinement must be uncommon?
<headius> well I sure hope so
<headius> your PR is not based on 9l3
<headius> 9.3
<enebo[m]> so yeah I am not concerned about shipping it but it would be nice to figure out why
<enebo[m]> ah yeah I did not toggle that
<enebo[m]> I will change it
<headius> huh how did you create this PR? It has your commit text indented like a quote
<headius> docker PR failed and doesn't look like my fault
<headius> error fetching some busybox image
<enebo[m]> I opened it using the URL github provides in the response
<enebo[m]> then I copy/pasted my commit message but I realize what happened
<enebo[m]> it is indented
<headius> yeah
<enebo[m]> I was doing this quickly
<headius> ok just was curious
<headius> I make PRs the same way
<enebo[m]> I must usually copy the comment from the PR itself? I am a little confused because I do this same pattern quite a bit
<enebo[m]> Maybe I manually correct the indentation but I don't recall ever doing that
<headius> what is the spec that fails?
<enebo[m]> /home/enebo/work/jruby/spec/ruby/core/module/refine_spec.rb:319:in `block in <main>'
<enebo[m]> as far as descriptions goes this is extremely straight-forward
<enebo[m]> the prepend overrides the refined version of a method
<enebo[m]> We are just one getMethodLocation away
<headius> ok nothing has changed in these tags recently
<enebo[m]> using seemingly copies that refinement blobber and we end up ignoring the prepend so getMethodLocation is now not finding the prependedmodule first
<enebo[m]> or ever
<headius> yeah I am looking into Module#using
<enebo[m]> another extra early lunch(tm)
<enebo[m]> should be pretty quick though
<headius> I have your branch and will try some things
<headius> the refinement logic uses getOrigin where it might want to be using getDelegate, unsure if that's it though
<headius> ah I see why it breaks and it conflicts with the fix
<headius> by getting the method location in the IncludeModule constructor, we walk away from the prepended bottom class
<headius> so the fix is the break
<headius> er, I mean in IncludedModuleWrapper constructor
<headius> hmmm
<headius> but this should be getting the module that was prepended, not the prepend wrapper
<headius> enebo: they do not appear to dig out method location in rb_include_class_new so maybe we do need to move it outside of the IncludedModuleWrapper constructor
<headius> I have an alternative fix
<headius> eh you did not link bug in your commit message
<headius> I'm not sure which example to use to retest this but here's the diff
<enebo[m]> I am back now
<headius> I moved the method location call out to the place where we finally do the include/prepend of the module, rather than in the constructor for the wrapper
<headius> I think it should still fix original issue without breaking the refinement
<enebo[m]> hmm
<enebo[m]> This ends up changing origin in the wrappen and adds this wrapper to the methodlocation and not the original module
<enebo[m]> This is the script I was using to test
<headius> what is the expected output
<enebo[m]> I guess [""]
<enebo[m]> I took this from the issue report but it was nomethoderror
BrianHoffman[m] has joined #jruby
<headius> I see what you are saying about origin but wondering if maybe this is actually correct
<headius> with your original change it was wrapping the origin but holding a reference to the method location
<headius> so invalidating the origin would invalidate this wrapper even though it is not where we got the methods from
<enebo[m]> the question is when you call getOrigin what should it give you
<enebo[m]> with my previous work and that fix it would be Enumerable
<enebo[m]> I am not sure what else actually expects that
<enebo[m]> That is not to say it is not the right fix I just don't know
<headius> all module specs pass with my change but I don't know if that gives us confidence
<headius> I can push mine as a competing PR and see how CI looks
<enebo[m]> yeah why don't you. Let's make sure it passes everything
<headius> ok
<enebo[m]> hmm how do you restart once you changed branch it is based on?
<enebo[m]> for actions?
<headius> not sure you can
<headius> it is a glitch and annoying
<headius> you could git commit --amend and then git push -f to get a new hash
<enebo[m]> perfect...restarted
<enebo[m]> I extracted the spec
<headius> yeah wfm
<enebo[m]> yeah
<enebo[m]> I half wonder if we are trying to do two things here is includedModuleWrapper
<headius> yeah that's why it seemed more right to move it out of there
<enebo[m]> with your patch in the include we will get getMethodLocation and use it as the origin which will be a non-origin wrapper but in the proceedWithInclude it is still passing in the origin
<headius> hm
<enebo[m]> So I think passing in a non-origin here is wrong but only because it means we are not dealing with the actual module with this change and that is more confusing to me
<headius> we could pass both in
<headius> but I am throwing darts here
<enebo[m]> yeah but if we setOrigin to be the real module will your patch continue to work?
<enebo[m]> err wait...I need to actually apply this.
<headius> setOrigin where?
<enebo[m]> I thought I knew the two places but I realize now the usage of this wrapper is wider
<enebo[m]> it is in the superclass of IncludeModuleWrapper
<enebo[m]> we pass origin down from its constructor
<headius> hmm yeah I am not sure what origin is used for from the wrapper
<headius> only failure on my PR looks like a flaky spec
<headius> signal-related
<enebo[m]> You fix only works I think because you change origin
<enebo[m]> Or actually the second one is that all the refinement code also uses this and getMethodLocation in those places might get screwed up
<enebo[m]> I would be curious if we ever see origin not be the real module without the patch
<enebo[m]> I think my fear is this breaks the mental model I have for what origin is.
<headius> my fix works because it does not get the method location from the prepended refinement
<enebo[m]> If so then we could pass origin and get method location it needs to go right before we make the wrapper?
<headius> when we pass in a refinement module that has a prepend to this wrapper it needs to use literally that refinement module or we get that failure
<headius> so I figured the include wrapper should not be doing the digging itself, it should just wrap what is is given
<headius> include should dig because it needs to just get the original method table for the module since we gather the prepends and includes separately
<headius> so I moved it out to there
<headius> but I have no explanation for how origin should work
<headius> what about MRI?
<enebo[m]> yeah origin is my hangup because whatever calls getOrigin will get a wrapper instead of the real thing
<headius> when they include, do they use the actual module object or the prepend redirect module as the origin?
<enebo[m]> we could pass in them separate and see if anything breaks
<headius> not a wrapper
<headius> oh well yeah a wrapper
<headius> but it is the wrapper used to house the relocated method table
<enebo[m]> include will skip prepend roots and use the real thing. include itself starts with the real thing
<enebo[m]> So origin seems like it is the real module
<headius> so yeah I am leaning toward agreeing that the origin should remain the module object and not the relocated wrapper but I am guessing
<enebo[m]> but your suggestion to pass in the methods works for me if things pass
<enebo[m]> That is the essence of the original fix
<enebo[m]> and it is done in the constructor with my fix but if it is passed in nothing changes except that...just where it calls it changes
<enebo[m]> I am very confident about getMethodLocation fixing the prepend issue
<enebo[m]> So I will just add a parameter for methods to constructor but still pass in origin
<headius> getMethodLocation does fix prepend issue in both patches
<enebo[m]> yeah
<enebo[m]> so you have a second fix here
<enebo[m]> the raw getMethods for adding the refinements
<headius> yeah it seems like it was using the wrong table
<enebo[m]> That will literally be wrapper.getMethods()
<enebo[m]> Or it could be right?
<enebo[m]> since we are passing that in
<headius> what do you mean
<enebo[m]> the pr is methodLocation.getMethods() but we pass methodLocation in so the included wrappers methods is the same thing
<enebo[m]> then the ifRefinement() block is two statements looking at or modifying the wrapper
<headius> so you think we should pass the original origin but add the methods when calling IncludedModuleWrapper constructor>
<enebo[m]> I think so.
<headius> hehe
<enebo[m]> Here is one fear I have with my original PR and also with this second one
<enebo[m]> We have refinments using this modulewrapper all over and it is likely passing the real origin in
<enebo[m]> I think just from a delta of changed behavior keep origin be the same as it was is a good idea
<headius> I'm looking at the CRuby include logic for a sec
<enebo[m]> It also has the benefit that it always seems to really be the origin (or original module)
<enebo[m]> Adding a second constructor for origin + methodLocation and only using it in this one place is maybe more of a bandaid than a proper fix (who knows?) but it does limit our risk
<headius> hmm
<enebo[m]> I will commit to my branch what I mean
<headius> yeah ok
<enebo[m]> but look at constructors to includedmodulewrapper
<headius> the C code is not helping me
<headius> yeah I know what you mean to do
<enebo[m]> we use is a number of places for refinements
<enebo[m]> ok
<enebo[m]> who knwos this may break something?
<headius> I am just trying to suss out what MRI does
<headius> they get origin of the module passed into include
<enebo[m]> yeah and my belief is that means Enumerable
<headius> that goes into include_modules_at and then they get the methods directly from it
<enebo[m]> but maybe that is why we have problems :)
<headius> which would not be the methodLocation
<enebo[m]> nope
<headius> RCLASS_M_TBL(OBJ_WB_UNPROTECT(klass)) =
<headius> RCLASS_M_TBL(OBJ_WB_UNPROTECT(RCLASS_ORIGIN(module))); /* TODO: unprotected? */
<headius> that's where they set the method table of the wrapper
<headius> I don't think our origin means the same as theirs
<headius> I think their origin is our methodLocation
<headius> that would make this make sense
<enebo[m]> heh
<enebo[m]> yeah I feel like we diverged at some level but I am not sure it is bad or not
<headius> otherwise I do not see how they are getting the relocated methods
<enebo[m]> I would like our definitions to be consistent
<headius> if e.g. you have prepended something into Enumerable
<enebo[m]> maybe with them but definitely in how we use them
<enebo[m]> you looking at what version of MRI?
<headius> 2.6
<headius> hell
<headius> yes our origin is not the same
<headius> our "origin" name goes back to 2014 or earlier and refers to the module a wrapper points at
<headius> IncludedModuleWrapper.getDelegate returns origin
<enebo[m]> getOrigin also returns origin but I am wondering if they are both always the same
<enebo[m]> in my last fixes for prepend I removed getNonIncludedClass for getOrigin since they were 100% always the same value
<enebo[m]> but things went from getDelegate().getNonIncludedCModule -> getDelegate().getOrigin()
<enebo[m]> I would have killed origin or delegate had they always agreed...or at least I feel I would have
<headius> there is also this in the MRI loop walking all modules to include:
<headius> if (RCLASS_ORIGIN(module) != module)
<headius> goto skip;
<headius> I believe this will skip when it sees include wrappers so it ends up walking up to the method location as a result
<headius> because that one has the right method table
<enebo[m]> yeah we do have something like that almost...we only skip if it is a prepend root (e.g. prependedmodule)
<headius> using the definition I think MRI uses
<headius> try pushing your fix?
<enebo[m]> I submitted the link above
<headius> digging out the methods in the constructor just breaks the refinement thing because it doesn't see prepends then
<headius> so I think moving it out is better and we can debate origin without changing it in this release
<headius> we will probably find some tagged specs that break because of origin
<headius> ok
<enebo[m]> we do have delegate checks and not origin checks in our doIncludeModule logic which does the skip
<enebo[m]> I would not be surprised if our logic was approximately the same as their in 2014
<headius> I'm fine going with your patch if it passes everything , since it reduces the risk changing origin
<enebo[m]> Am I crazy or is the GHA UI links into and out of actions stuff impossible to find
<headius> You mean the details link in the list of jobs?
<enebo[m]> I keep searchign around with my mouse trying to find where I can see the whole list of items vs just one
<enebo[m]> if I go up to Actions it is easy to get to that point
<enebo[m]> if I am in actions and I want to go to the commit which kicked this off where is that?
<enebo[m]> Or the PR maybe
<headius> Oh yeah I'm not sure if there's a way to navigate from the pull request to the overall workflow
<headius> Not sure about the other way around either
<headius> It is not as obvious as with Travis
<enebo[m]> I think CI will be like buld tools...always maligned
<headius> So I think we agreed that we will not be releasing 9.3.2 today, right ?
<enebo[m]> Well I am happy to do it in the morning but it looks like this is green
<enebo[m]> waiting on spec:ruby:slow
<headius> Have you run your verifications on this yet?
<headius> I'm fine releasing either day but it's already after 1:00
<enebo[m]> I put a FIXME in that commit saynig we should evaluate the original constructors that refinments uses to make sure we could maybe always just do the same thing
<headius> Ok
<enebo[m]> yeah I will spin bits this afternoon and kick the tires
<headius> I am remembering adding a comment saying that origin is not the same as in c Ruby but I can't find it now
<enebo[m]> If this breaks Rails we will have some time to figure that out
<headius> It may have just been in a commit that fixed something related but I know our names are not referring to the same thing somewhere in here
<enebo[m]> tbh I don't feel great about any changes to refinements
<enebo[m]> I do think prepend fix is correct though.
<headius> Yeah this doesn't change anything in refinements, it just relocates your fix so that it doesn't interfere with the refinement seeing the pre-pended layer
<headius> So it localizes your fix to just the include
<enebo[m]> you will see I do wrapper.getMethods there since it will be same value
<headius> I did notice that
<headius> Hopefully that will always be the case 😀
<enebo[m]> well it is an object we just made but I suppose in 3-4 years we may add another one in between those two points :)
<enebo[m]> or maybe do serious magic in the constructor
<headius> I blame Ruby for having an overcomplicated class system
<enebo[m]> I do hope the 3.0 work clarifies this a bit more in my mind
<enebo[m]> having to update existing uses to remove the temporal nature will probably require staring at this crud more
<headius> Yeah we still need to get on that. I don't think our timeline will be too far behind but 9.4 is not going to be ready by the end of the year
<enebo[m]> no. and I am planning on next week off still
<enebo[m]> winter break will happen as well
<headius> Core classes and standard library should be solid but we have a number of language things to iron out
<enebo[m]> with that said we are ~200 F/E on each suite and that is mostly overlap
<headius> And we can't really finish greening up to suites until we fix the language stuff
<enebo[m]> 40 of those are Time#{ceil,floor} not existing
<headius> Yeah that's a weird one
<enebo[m]> like 75% are not much more than labor...like the new warning subsystem needs to switch on category
<enebo[m]> StrScanner needs to work with strings/regexps
<headius> I still have a few extensions that need to move into MRI gems
<headius> But we are getting there
<enebo[m]> which is probably more work than the other two but you see what I mean. We have a lot less work other than fixing kwarg arg bindings AND this prepend/include stuff
<enebo[m]> Once those two things are done we really will be just about there
<headius> I will try to revisit my keyword argument stuff the rest of this week so it stays fresh in my head but I think it's on the right track
<enebo[m]> yeah once that is working I think we will see the weird binding bugs disappear
<headius> The way we mark that a hash is from keywords might be a little cumbersome right now
<enebo[m]> I tried a stab at Fiber#raise and that got rid of 15 or 18 or so fails but I have no confidence because after the raise the fiber was still usable :)
<enebo[m]> That literally took about 5 minutes but I am pretty sure it is partially wrong because I just called Thread#raise internally :)
<headius> They are moving more and more towards a fiber behaving like a thread
<headius> Okay I need to step away for a while
<enebo[m]> ok
<headius> Was plan on release tomorrow and you can do whatever verification you need
<headius> Let's plan
<headius> jnr update and everything else is merged into 9.3 9.3
<enebo[m]> yeah
<enebo[m]> if things look good this afternoon let's plan on releasing morningish
<enebo[m]> headius: when you are next on perhaps look at reducing the targetted 9.3 issues. We can punt for 9.3.3 but we seem to punt a lot without fixing them