Hi Jeroen, I apologize for not being able to respond to the list sooner, I've been busy between being father, husband, and part-time consultant+project manager lately. That said I try to keep on top of emails, and I've only been able to relax a bit now. Hopefully I'll be able to respond to emails quicker this time.
That said please see below. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Jeroen Habraken <[email protected]> wrote: > > I saw you've merged my changes to master, yet I'd have preferred if > you had waited for my pull request. I intended to add the > boost::optional changes to the API first, to catch the breaking in one > go, yet I'm honoured that you considered my code to be master-branch > ready. > Yup, no worries. That merge also included a few fixes in different places. I actually wasn't supposed to merge with master, but I was having some trouble merging to 0.6-devel directly, having your code branched from 0.5-devel. I decided since I've already merged 0.5-devel to master, I might as well merge your code to master. ;) > Unfortunately with the merge you've reintroduced issue #3, something I > hadn't patched as I was anticipating to merge upstream with my code > before a pull-request. I've now merged upstream with my fork and > issued a pull-request to fix this in the 0.6-devel branch, but it > should be merged with master too. > Yup, I overlooked this. Thanks for patching and catching that. We should have a test for that specific issue! :D (That said I think I've merged it already into head and 0.6-devel too). ;) > I'll also try to layout somewhat of roadmap for the URI code as some > of the things I've mentioned before still have to be done: > - A lot more tests need to be added +1 > - Documentation needs to be updated, and an the example should be > expanded to show the use of scheme() for example +1 > - Another API change is coming up, which will expose the optional > parameters as boost::optionals, instead of returning an empty default > value > +1 > On the longer term I'd like to get on the way with URI normalisation, > but it still needs some pondering on how this will fit in the current > code. Given the fact that 0.6 is planned for the end of February, my > initial plan would be to finish what I'd hoped to do for 0.5, namely > the three things above. > That sounds great. Please branch off of 0.6-devel this time so that further development takes advantage of the new stuff I'll be checking in sooner than later. I really should stop being project manager and just get back to engineer mode both in cpp-netlib and in my consulting gigs. I miss writing C++!!! :D > Yours, > Jeroen Habraken > Thanks again for all the work, I think I personally don't have the patience to deal with the intricacies of being RFC compliant at the URI layer unlike you and other contributors to the project. Have a good week ahead and I look forward to another pull request soon! :D -- Dean Michael Berris cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Cpp-netlib-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpp-netlib-devel
