> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
> Sent: maandag 31 augustus 2015 15:20
> To: dev@serf.apache.org; l...@mobsol.be
> Subject: Re: [serf-dev] [serf] r2489 committed - In preparation of serf 1.4.0,
> remove the get_remaining function from t...
>
> On 6 April 2015 at 20:49, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> > On 6 April 2015 at 19:02, Lieven Govaerts <l...@mobsol.be> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: serf-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:serf-...@googlegroups.com]
> On
> >>>> Behalf Of s...@googlecode.com
> >>>> Sent: maandag 6 april 2015 11:25
> >>>> To: serf-...@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: [serf-dev] [serf] r2489 committed - In preparation of serf
> >>>> 1.4.0,
> >>>> remove the get_remaining function from t...
> >>>>
> >>>> Revision: 2489
> >>>> Author: lieven.govaerts
> >>>> Date: Mon Apr 6 09:24:18 2015 UTC
> >>>> Log: In preparation of serf 1.4.0, remove the get_remaining function
> >>>> from the
> >>>> bucket API.
> >>>>
> >>>> This reverts most of r2008, r2009, r2010 and r2198. From r2008 I kept the
> >>>> read_bucket_v2 function, which is needed for set_config.
> >>>
> >>> If we still keep the read_bucket_v2 feature, what is the reason for just
> removing get_remaining?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm fixing all TODO's as discussed in the summer last year.
> >> Get_remaining isn't finished yet and not used. So instead of waiting
> >> until someone uses it, I'm removing it now so we can get 1.4 branched.
> >>
> >> We can still revert this revision after 1.4.x is branched though. In
> >> fact, we can release 1.5.x with just this if an application wants to
> >> make use of the (finalized) get_remaining feature.
> >>
> > What problem do we have with get_remaining() feature except
> > read_bucket_v2() linkage problems? get_remaining() feature is not used
> > in Subversion for only one reason: serf-trunk has version 2.0.0 so
> > it's not possible to add version detection code.
> >
> >
> Hi Lieven,
>
> I still don't understand your arguments on reverting get_remaining()
> feature. Why you consider get_remaining() as isn't finished?
>
> The read_bucket_v2() linking problem also apply to your serf_config_t
> feature, but we didn't reverted it from trunk.
>
> Also adding this feature latter will require read_bucket_v3() which
> increase the mess.
+1
Thanks for reminding me to ask that same question.
Thanks,
Bert
