On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Evgeny Kotsuba wrote:
> (a) it is possible to use "C++ as C" and there are some resons for this -
> more strict syntax etc.
Not a valid reason for 2.5. The language of Squid-2 IS C, not C++.
As already indicated, I do not oppose patches which makes your life easier
(which is a valid reason). But I won't accept patches along these lines if
they make my life harder in getting the 2.6 release together which means
that I prefer to wait with this until most pieces of what should go into
2.6 is there.
> (b) compatibilty with 3.0 reasons. As I have see there were a number of
> parrallel patches to 2.5 and 3.0
Just fixing up the "C++ does not like this" issues in 2.5 wont get any
closer to eleminate this problem. Until Squid-3.0.STABLE there will always
need to be porting of patches between the two trees (or even three trees
while 2.6 is under development).
Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Oct 24 2005 - 10:45:32 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 12:00:07 MST