Re: C++ (again) / Squid 3

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 00:23, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > > My current position is is pretty neutral. To me at this moment it is
> > > mostly a question on release maintenance. I do not see C++ as an option
> > > during Squid-2.X. But if we are prepared to jump to Squid-3 then sure,
> > > why not.
> >
> > So what you are saying, is when we have a patch for C++ across the
> > board, we call the next release 3.0?
>
> You can put it that way if you like, but I prefer to view it the other way. If
> we are prepared to start development of release 3.0 then I have no problem
> with using C++ in this development, using a model of gradual transition and
> refactoring of the current code.

I understand the difference you are making between the two ways of
expressing it.

2.6: as per the TODO.
2.7: nothing definately slated. (Some possibles in the TODO).
3.0: ????

So, when you say 'begin development on 3.0', I'm not sure how you
differentiate that from 2.6/2.7. Other than language that is. And if
language is the only differentiator, then language IS the metric for
having 3.0 ready.

Also, from a risk management perspective, we should release a C++
version with minimal C++ features as soon as we complete the conversion,
to get feedback and provide a baseline.

Rob