Re: [RFC] Time to talk about StringNG merge again?

Ok, it's agreed then, I'll cherrypick.
File-wise it's not hard. I'm a bit worried about automake , but I'll manage.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 04:46 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>
>> it's been a while since the last StringNG merge checkpoint , and
>> several improvements were made in the meantime.
>>
>> I have briefly reviewed the previous requests for changes, I don't
>> think there's any outstanding change requests; the new unit testing
>> gives encouraging results (thanks Alex & Amos!).
>>
>> Feature branch is at lp:~squid/squid/stringng
>
> Well, request for changes follow requests for merge. I do not recall
> recent requests for StringNG merge. Let's treat your email as the latest
> request for merge. FWIW, I should be able to work on this next week.
>
>
>> Questions were raised about the merge strategy - should we include the
>> Tokenizer and additional stuff?
>> My opinion: in order to minimize the effort, I'd like to merge
>> everything, but marking everything but SBuf as
>> experimental-do-not-touch or #ifdef-d out. It'd mean either a bit of
>> unused shipped code or unused shipped files.
>
> My opinion on that has not changed (just like the relevant code?): We
> should not include that code because it is of insufficient quality and
> has not been reviewed. Removing it just before commit after patching (or
> merging into) trunk is a minor overhead because nothing uses it. The
> code may still remain in the StringNG branch, of course.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.
>

-- 
    /kinkie