On Saturday 15 June 2002 17:04, Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse wrote:
> I was thinking of something that tracked it very very closely...
> not even stable, just buildable, so as to attract early adopters
> who don't know C... but I see your point that if HEAD itself is
> broken for extended periods of time then tracking very closely with
> a stable version becomes all but impossible.
The above is the goal of all development branches, but relies on
someone having the time to track HEAD. Lately I haven't had the time
to make all the needed updates to rproxy for tracking HEAD due to
other more priority tasks needing my attention (VPN related products,
more information will soon be available from MARA Systems AB).
What the "rproxy" patch suffers from at the moment it design changes
in HEAD that in turn requires the "rproxy" patch to be adopted to the
new design. It is not like that there has been any changes in the
actual "rproxy" patch that broke it.
> On another note, if I submitted a patch to HEAD that changed
> READ_AHEAD_GAP to be a config file parameter, would that patch be
> accepted?
Probably, if given a good motivation why such a thing is needed and
what kind of testing you have done to make sure that there was no ill
effects of changing this..
Regards
Henrik
Received on Sat Jun 15 2002 - 17:58:12 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:15:40 MST