Re: nt branch KILLED

Hi Robert,

At 14.16 22/02/2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 23:42, Guido Serassio wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After the latest astyle changes to HEAD, when I run cvsmerge, I have got
> > more the 300 conflicts in nt branch !!!
>
>Ouch. Been there myself - I have a number of branches to clean up, and
>they will all go through a similar thing.

I know this, but keep in mind that many branches are based on functionality
additions, with many NEW code sections, and the merging is simpler
The nt branch is based on many and many existent code CHANGES to address
the Windows/Unix differences, and it's very complex to maintain.

> > I think that this type of code "clean" should be made with more respects
> > for the works of other developers, I can't spend my time fixing cosmetic
> > HEAD code changes.
>
>Well, you had 2 weeks notice, and the guidelines where in place for a
>long time - 6 months IIRC. We can't force everyone to stop developing
>and get everything merged before we do things. You had plenty of time to
>say "hey, please don't do this, I think it'll cause me problems".

- After the C++ changes, the nt branch is broken on IPC
- After the changes around 2-3 February there are again C++ problems with
MS VisualStudio
- I don't know C++ at all, and so i can't fix the previous problems
- I'm the only developer
- the nt branch is very big: 690 KB diff file
- now the nt branch is totally out of sync

I can't no more maintain this alone.

> > If the Squid community wants to support Windows, the nt branch must be
> > merged now, or please, say "we don't like to support Windows", but please,
> > respect my time.
>
>I certainly do respect your time. I'm a volunteer - just like you.
>
>Astyle is a one-time, won't happen again policy implementation. It was
>proposed when the C++ branch was created, and the guidelines where put
>up for review. It had to be done before 3.0 was released, to allow for
>any sort of sane management of the 3.0 and 3.1 branches.
>
>It's got nothing (IMO) to do with when the NT port is merged. Any large
>branch (i.e rproxy) needs maintenance to track head.
>
>I can say this: the nt branch won't be merged as a single block. It's
>too big, and it's had what - three? - authors which means that there are
>lots of little gotcha's. We need to find those, and the process of
>merging single bits of functionality does exactly that.
>
>I've (AFAIK) merged in all the individual changes you've split off and
>posted here, with a couple that were evaluated as being unneeded - some
>of those little gotchas.

This not true:

I have posted the latest patch at 5 February: I have NEVER received ANY
reply and it was not commited.
I'm still waiting to know any comment about, so I'm thinking:

No opinions or comments ==> no interest about Windows

>Having said that: keep splitting parts of the NT branch out, and I'll
>keep merging them.

I'm still waiting for know something about latest patches before send new
changes.

Regards

Guido

-
=======================================================
Serassio Guido
Via Albenga, 11/4 10134 - Torino - ITALY
E-mail: guido.serassio@serassio.it
WWW: http://www.serassio.it
Received on Sat Feb 22 2003 - 09:37:03 MST