Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Perhaps this effort would be a good candidate for a short-lived "pool-scope-2.x-unstable" branch.
[...]
You suggest the branch because we aren't sure that's the way we will do it? Or is it because instead of sending patches one can freely commit things and get others the changes right away?
Yes- I hate seeing good efforts stall out while waiting for consensus to form.
Well if there is no consensus then why wasting time in first place.
I guess we have to wait until after the thankslazygivings to be over and hopefully will hear from the others.
>Otherwise what's wrong with gradual changes, starting with APR::Table and moving to other classes and refactoring on the way...
Nothing, if there's ready consensus that your APR::Table patch is the right approach. Of course
you have my +1 to commit it to trunk and whittle away at your heart's content.
Right, but in the event that doesn't happen before you've lost your zeal, I suggest making a branchIn any case I hope that others will comment on the problem in hand and give their insights on the proposed solutions...
before simply giving up on it.
I won't lose it since it's a showstopper for 2.0 release. And I want to see 2.0 RC1 out really soon now.
But let's do the branch at least in order to learn how branching works with svn.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
