On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 13:50 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > If you have no objections, feel free to apply it. > Done, with minor tweaking to make it C90-compliant.
Great. Sorry about the C99 thing - why don't you add the appropriate compiler switch to the build system? Wouldn't have happened then. :-) > > 1. The reason parameter is now redundant, everywhere, at all send > > routines. You should probably always set it to NULL, both for > > semi-correctness and to save some bytes of space (it will still do the > > same thing as before if you give it a value though). > > That's unfortunate but unavoidable if you want to keep compatibility. > Yup; not a huge disaster. Of-course it's not - but it's something I believe should be targeted to be resolved in a major release... either by renaming them all (personally I wouldn't like that) or by providing a set of macros which silently drop the parameter (probably put in the compat header). Wouldn't provide _true_ compatibility (because the correct status response would be emitted instead)... It's up to you (well. just stating the obvious :-). > The first patch is IMO a bug fix, but the second patch is > definitely a new feature, and I don't want to break the feature-freeze > for 2.0.x even for probably harmless stuff. Agreed. What's the time-table for opening up a 2.1 branch? I'm just starting development - currently with my patch for all the error responses - of an application, and I have no problem dog-food-testing other people's contributions. (Another reason I'm asking because I strongly suspect the evhttp API is lacking support for the stuff I want to do, and instead of redoing evhttp on-top of evbufferevent I will keep touching the code). Of-course I have no problem with sticking to my local git repository for now (or indefinitely, personally I don't care :-) > I've changed the behavior of "make verify" in Git so that it should be > better at displaying what test actually fails for you. You can also > get more verbose output from older versions of Libevent by running > ./test/regress manually. Could you please add a bugtracker entry for > the unit test that's failing for you? Done: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3007540&group_id=50884&atid=461322 Stating the obvious again - if you need any more information about my system... just ask. :-) On a side note - as I have been doing mostly proprietary work in the last few years... I really enjoy the F/OSS "bazaar style" development process again... I also learn to love git again - my experience with it dates back to my collaboration with the Wine project a few years back... Cheers, Felix *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.
