Re: IPv6 developments for HEAD

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> 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?
>

Currently the branch is looking at nearly 5500 lines of code changed.
With nearly 3000 lines removed from the core of squid so far.

In complete agreement with Henrik and Adrians views that stability in
3.0 should not be risked. I am nevertheless trying to drop that huge
difference in 'small' discrete isolated chunks.

I have managed to find 3 areas that will do a large amount of reduction
without changing or touching the core code in any way. RFCs were step 1.
  IPAddress is step 2. A new rfc3596 (DNS) library based non the RFCs
is a third, but that still needs major testing and is weeks away I think.

When the 'non-changes' are out of the branch and in HEAD waiting to be
used. The actual core changes can push ahead cleanly for IPv6 in 3.1,
both inside my branch and in any others who want to jump for the new
ability while HEAD is closed to them.

Amos
Received on Wed Apr 11 2007 - 05:19:50 MDT