On 4/08/2016 12:44 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
On 02.08.2016 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote:
I don't have rights to commit my changes, and looks like I can not
persuade others that my changes are Ok as-is, with all changes, made on
requests from reviewers.
Personally, I think, that (1) + (2) is orthogonal to (3) and it should
be different change sets, reviews, etc. And, yes, (3) is great feature
by itself.
I think 1 on its own would have good chance.. I'd probably commit it
myself :-)
save-state as a new keyword, that doesn't do a check-state.
2 is more esoteric. and sort of orthogonal to 1.
Do we have any movement on these improvements?
even similar functionality by different names is ok.
1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most
important for me. (store-state)?
2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less important
for me.
3/ multiple state tables? this was discussed and I thought I saw patches
but I haven't seen it going in, <-- super luxurious
just noticed this IS in...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
