On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 11:41 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:24 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> Attached are two patches which constitute part of the core developments > >> for protocol-independent handling of IP addresses in squid3. > > > > In your opinion, should these be committed to Squid 3.0? Are they likely > > to cause short-term stability problems? Should they be applied to Squid > > 3.1 instead? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Alex. > > > > Yes. No. both?. > > I would like to see them in 3.0. > > The new object I am submitting is isolated 'infrastructure' which does not > affect the rest of squid in any way. It is itself the stable base needed > for future work.
Interesting. If IPAddress is not used by Squid before and after your patch, is there a reason to commit it now? Originally, I thought that you are modifying common code and want to commit ASAP to minimize future conflicts. Now I understand that IpAddress addition does not alter anything in Squid core (and you are not asking to commit the rest of your changes, which do). On one hand, I am tempted to vote immediate inclusion of IPAddress simply to satisfy a valuable developer. On the other hand, I do not understand why you want that file to be in HEAD if nothing is using it. Could you please clarify why you want to see IPAddress in HEAD? > The update to rfc1035 is a reversal of previous changes which is again > stabilising that area a little more. This is not my area. Any objections from others to committing the rfc1035 part of the patch? Thank you, Alex.