On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote: > When I looked at this code a few years ago, I thought it was overly > complicated and obtuse. Since spending the day with it today, and > discovering the invalid assumption, I stand by my original opinion.
I was afraid you'd say that when you volunteered to look into it. So far I stayed away from RFA and concentrated on the other issues - and never had any reason to read into RFA's code in the past. We seem to belong to the lucky few who haven't faced any of its internal issues. But just from reading through the sevaral issues raised against it it was clear to me that it must contain a multitude of problems that have historically piled up. > After looking at the 14 or so bug reports against RFA and remembering a > few that I never submitted, I think RFA needs a major simplification via > a rewrite to better handle gaps in the file names/numbers etc. OK. I think it would be good to push all of the RFA issues from 1.2.11 to 1.2 MAINTENANCE then and live with the fact that there will be known issues with it in 1.2.11 - or do you expect to have a drop-in replacement ready in a time frame of - say - a few weeks? Unfortunately I still don't have a build environment for the "older" frameworks (but am far from having given up on it) and this seems to be the major hurdle for the 1.2.11 release right now. > I am open to suggestions as to what features to add/delete from a > rewritten RFA. I know many people, including myself, have wanted a max > number of files per time increment when rolled by size and time. I think there is a JIRA issue (with patch IIRC) to that effect. Stefan
