Ok, it's agreed then, I'll cherrypick. File-wise it's not hard. I'm a bit worried about automake , but I'll manage.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Alex Rousskov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- /kinkie
