On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 21:00 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > I like the intention of this patch but: > > * I don't think we should be messing around with everything before > we've at least -released- Squid-3 (And it pains me to say this, > because _I_ want to start taking as much of a knife to the codebase > to make it sane as much as you do.) > > * I think we really need to sit down and nut out what the code modules > and APIs should do before we run off and refactor/recode stuff. > > So I'd prefer it if you'd hold off on putting this into Squid-3 until > we've released something stable-but-slower-than-normal and fixed whatever > bugs pop up as people start migrating over to Squid-3.
I'll hold it in a branch indefinately then. If we get some good traction this coming weekend - the bug-fixing-fest - I will be much happier about it sitting in a branch for a month, maybe two, than if we dont. With regards to the sit-down-and-nut-out - refactoring is /defined/ as 'improving the design of existing code'. I really think its fine to refactor to make incremental improvements. This is in no way incompatible with: * doing a design overhaul and setting a new target for the refactoring * Doing a rewrite of some chunks of the code base. The primary benefit I'm aiming at is a squid which is easily amenable to writing unit tests: so that we can be confident regressions are not occuring. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
