(Please don't Cc: me, I'm subscribed to the list.) On 16-11-10 16:12:31, Willy Tarreau wrote: > That's cool! > > The only thing is that I don't want to delay the release only for this, > and at the same time I'm pretty sure it's possible to do something which > will not impact existing code within a reasonable time frame. I just > don't know how long it takes to make everyone agree on the schema. My > intent is to release 1.7 by the end of next week *if we don't discover > new scary bugs*. So if you think it's doable by then, that's fine. Or > if you want to buy more time, you need to discover a big bug which will > keep me busy and cause the release to be delayed ;-) Otherwise I think > it will have to be in 1.8. > > Note, to be clear, if many people insist on having this, we don't have an > emergency to release by the end of next week, but it's just a policy we > cannot pursue forever, at least by respect for those who were pressured > to send their stuff in time. So I think that we can negociate one extra > week if we're sure to have something completed, but only if people here > insist on having it in 1.7. > > Thus the first one who has a word to say is obviously Simon : if you > think that even two weeks are not achievable, let's calmly postpone > and avoid any stress.
Even if I'm not Simon, I'll say a word, hope thats okay, because I've dug out this old thread: It's fine for me if it will go into 1.7 or 1.8. I don't need this within the next two weeks, but looking forward to use it. If it will take another four, six or eight weeks, this is completely fine with me. All the best, Georg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
