Re: te branch

Oh, and as Patrick seems to have vanished from membership on this list, and active development, I'd like to change the ownership of
the te branch to me - any objections?

Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:58 PM
Subject: te branch

> As discussed before, I have now tagged the remains of Patrick McManus' work as te-20010110. I'm now commencing to get three ket
> goals:
>
> * RFC 2616 compliance for the te and transfer encoding headers. (this means just chunking support)
> * a modular [de|en]coder system.
> * gzip/deflate integration
>
> the 1st one I expect to be trivial. The second should be fairly easy as Patrick wrote his code in a modular fashion.
> The third one should be fairly easy again.
>
> I'm hoping to convince you guys to merge in the 1st step once it's isolated and stable without the other two. The reason I think
> that is a good idea is:
> * It will increase the utilisation of persistent connections (don't have to drop the link on unknown object sizes)
> * It's another step towards being rfc 2616 compliant (and that's a good thing right?)
> * It should have little or no impact on stability & performance, whereas the second and third steps might.
> * having it in place will allow Adrian and the other FS guys to see any issues it raises with their (re)work.
>
> Henrik: I accidentally
> cvs rtag -r Z-te_merge_HEAD Z-te-20010107_merge_HEAD squid
> instead of the Z-te-20010110_merge... that I actually wanted - so both that command and
> cvs rtag -r Z-te_merge_HEAD Z-te-20010110_merge_HEAD squid
> have been run. What's the easiest way to get rid of the erroneous 20010110 one?
>
> Rob
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 05:48:54 MST