Re: IPv6 developments for HEAD

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 11:41 +1200, squid3@treenet.co.nz 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.
Received on Tue Apr 10 2007 - 21:52:47 MDT