Re: breaking -HEAD

Fact:

If you intentionally break HEAD then you basically leave me with two
choices:

a) No longer use HEAD as the base for my development and testing
until HEAD again is functional.

b) To fix the problem introduced before any of my other development
can continue in a normal fashion.

So it does not help me much even if you promise it will get fixed
before what now is HEAD goes STABLE.

But I do agree that it would be sad to have the developed code
rot.

Regards
Henrik

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 02.44, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > I am not very happy with intentionally breaking features HEAD.
> >
> > Should also note that there is a huge backlog of mostly tested
> > features waiting to get committed to HEAD.
>
> I'm planning on working through them in some reasonably sane
> fashion (starting with andre's memory allocator) after I get this
> code committed.
>
> I don't want to break squid-HEAD either but I think the changes
> I'm doing warrant some temporary breakage. The API itself isn't
> going to change for a while - I'm going to concentrate now on doing
> some of the stuff that the new API will let us do and get it all
> stable before I work on the next bit of API breakage. Chances are
> the next bit of API breakage is going to involve splitting out
> storeGet() et al into a callback routine - which again will break
> the cache digest code.
>
> I will go back and get the digests code going well before
> squid-HEAD becomes stable.
>
> Henrik - I think that the commloops stuff is the beginning of a
> very, very large shift in the squid internals. My plan is to get
> this and the other pending projects into HEAD and tested thoroughly
> before the pending work becomes too stale. If I wasn't worried
> about this I'd just keep going until I've completely redone the
> storage manager and network code - then noone's work will be
> committed since all the branches will be so far apart.
>
> Once everything thats pending is in HEAD and the bugs are ironed
> out I'll move forward to the next round. That way, all the new
> nifty stuff that people have been working on goes into -HEAD and
> their combined behaviour gets dealt with (and fixed if needed!).
>
> If you are still against it then I'll keep going along with the
> digest code until I get it finished - but I don't have any timeline
> for that and I'd rather the work not rot because of one module.
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
Received on Wed Feb 13 2002 - 16:04:28 MST