Graham Leggett wrote: > > I see lots of comments on the code, but the comments are summarised as > "the cache is fine as it is". It isn't. If it was fine, key users of > network caching wouldn't be standing up saying they're using something > else.
I concur, but the history becomes a nightmare. Let's back out the vetoed efforts and work up -clean- patches to apply that solve one issue each, and don't raise the objections again? I understand the desire to make incremental progress, but patches of patches of patches make the overall history hard to follow, and the net results harder to review.
