On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:33:13PM +0200, Geoff Simmons wrote:
> On 8/22/19 14:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > 
> >> I would suggest naming it something like fc_authority or
> >> fc_pp_authority, to be specific about where it came from.
> Since you used fc_pp_authority in an example further down, I'll take
> that as the choice (unless somebody yells). Seems better to me, since
> just "authority" could refer to a number of things.


> All right, I think we've covered enough that I can take another go at
> coding it up. And I believe I can mail a patch next time, if there are
> no objections. Since the patch will be adding a fetch, I'd say the
> regression risk is MINOR, as no one could have ever used it before.

If it's really *that* minor (we'll see in the end), we could even think
about backporting it to 2.0. We do occasionally backport a few sample
fetches and converters when they are totally harmless. And if your work
on Varnish is about to be completed, you could benefit from the full
support from a stable version.

> Willy, thanks again for the feedback, the first impression about working
> with haproxy development has been very pleasant.


Reply via email to