Re: [RFC] Time to talk about StringNG merge again?

On 03/29/2013 04:46 AM, Kinkie wrote:

> it's been a while since the last StringNG merge checkpoint , and
> several improvements were made in the meantime.
>
> I have briefly reviewed the previous requests for changes, I don't
> think there's any outstanding change requests; the new unit testing
> gives encouraging results (thanks Alex & Amos!).
>
> Feature branch is at lp:~squid/squid/stringng

Well, request for changes follow requests for merge. I do not recall
recent requests for StringNG merge. Let's treat your email as the latest
request for merge. FWIW, I should be able to work on this next week.

> Questions were raised about the merge strategy - should we include the
> Tokenizer and additional stuff?
> My opinion: in order to minimize the effort, I'd like to merge
> everything, but marking everything but SBuf as
> experimental-do-not-touch or #ifdef-d out. It'd mean either a bit of
> unused shipped code or unused shipped files.

My opinion on that has not changed (just like the relevant code?): We
should not include that code because it is of insufficient quality and
has not been reviewed. Removing it just before commit after patching (or
merging into) trunk is a minor overhead because nothing uses it. The
code may still remain in the StringNG branch, of course.

Cheers,

Alex.
Received on Fri Mar 29 2013 - 15:14:42 MDT