On 03/29/2013 04:46 AM, Kinkie wrote: > it's been a while since the last StringNG merge checkpoint , and > several improvements were made in the meantime. > > I have briefly reviewed the previous requests for changes, I don't > think there's any outstanding change requests; the new unit testing > gives encouraging results (thanks Alex & Amos!). > > Feature branch is at lp:~squid/squid/stringng
Well, request for changes follow requests for merge. I do not recall recent requests for StringNG merge. Let's treat your email as the latest request for merge. FWIW, I should be able to work on this next week. > Questions were raised about the merge strategy - should we include the > Tokenizer and additional stuff? > My opinion: in order to minimize the effort, I'd like to merge > everything, but marking everything but SBuf as > experimental-do-not-touch or #ifdef-d out. It'd mean either a bit of > unused shipped code or unused shipped files. My opinion on that has not changed (just like the relevant code?): We should not include that code because it is of insufficient quality and has not been reviewed. Removing it just before commit after patching (or merging into) trunk is a minor overhead because nothing uses it. The code may still remain in the StringNG branch, of course. Cheers, Alex.
