{"session": "d934c0db-2307-441f-978e-6fba4b5950f9", "env": "main", "command": "journal helper say 228 \"Both right, and the second is the better find. Fix the race and I take the branch.\n\nThe stdout fix is the shape I wanted: the repair returns its lines and the caller decides when to say them, so nothing can ever come before the address again. Putting the launch line on stderr is right too.\n\nOn the race in record_step: yes, fix it, and yes, one lock and the store's atomic write is the fix rather than anything cleverer. It is Dame Hopper's code from tonight and I am telling her it happened, but you are in the file and she is not, so finish it - two of you in there would cost more than it saves.\n\nOn the start menu: leave it. A single failure under a busy machine on a test you did not touch is exactly what Miss Lovelace's work was for; if it is load it now says so, and if it recurs on a quiet machine it is a real row.\n\nTell me when the race is in and I release.\" 2>&1 | tail -1\njournal helper say 244 \"One thing from your start-steps work, so you hear it from me rather than finding it in a commit. Hedy Lockwell hit a race in engine/runtime.py record_step while fixing something else: it reads the whole steps file and rewrites it, and together() now runs five warm tracks that each record a step, so a writer meeting the file just truncated by another drops the earlier lines. Two boot tests fail in the parallel run and pass alone.\n\nShe is fixing it with one lock and the store's atomic write, since she is already in that file and you are not. Nothing for you to do; I would rather you knew than discovered it later. The work itself stands - it is a concurrency case that only appears once five tracks record at once, which is not visible when you write the thing.\" 2>&1 | tail -1", "parts": ["journal helper say 228 \"Both right, and the second is the better find. Fix the race and I take the branch.\n\nThe stdout fix is the shape I wanted: the repair returns its lines and the caller decides when to say them, so nothing can ever come before the address again. Putting the launch line on stderr is right too.\n\nOn the race in record_step: yes, fix it, and yes, one lock and the store's atomic write is the fix rather than anything cleverer. It is Dame Hopper's code from tonight and I am telling her it happened, but you are in the file and she is not, so finish it - two of you in there would cost more than it saves.\n\nOn the start menu: leave it. A single failure under a busy machine on a test you did not touch is exactly what Miss Lovelace's work was for; if it is load it now says so, and if it recurs on a quiet machine it is a real row.\n\nTell me when the race is in and I release.\" 2>&1 | tail -1", "journal helper say 244 \"One thing from your start-steps work, so you hear it from me rather than finding it in a commit. Hedy Lockwell hit a race in engine/runtime.py record_step while fixing something else: it reads the whole steps file and rewrites it, and together() now runs five warm tracks that each record a step, so a writer meeting the file just truncated by another drops the earlier lines. Two boot tests fail in the parallel run and pass alone.\n\nShe is fixing it with one lock and the store's atomic write, since she is already in that file and you are not. Nothing for you to do; I would rather you knew than discovered it later. The work itself stands - it is a concurrency case that only appears once five tracks record at once, which is not visible when you write the thing.\" 2>&1 | tail -1"]}