On 08/24/2012 08:56 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> Meanwhile I am working on more test routines. So far it's only kind of unit
> testing. But after finishing that, i'll write a test small http/https server
> (using mget net routines) that could offer as many tests as we need
> (timeouts,
> authorizat
Am Thursday 16 August 2012 schrieb Micah Cowan:
> On 08/16/2012 01:36 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > It would be perfect, to have a large test suite. If someone works out a
> > test suite design for wget1, I would spend some time into the coding.
>
> wget1 already has a test suite. It most likely need
Am Thursday 16 August 2012 schrieb Micah Cowan:
> On 08/16/2012 01:36 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > It would be perfect, to have a large test suite. If someone works out a
> > test suite design for wget1, I would spend some time into the coding.
>
> wget1 already has a test suite. It most likely need
On 08/16/2012 01:36 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> It would be perfect, to have a large test suite. If someone works out a test
> suite design for wget1, I would spend some time into the coding.
wget1 already has a test suite. It most likely needs to be expanded with
enough tests to provide more comple
this is OT now, but the relavant information is in the first graph
""
at the moment if you try a recursive wget with --no-clobber
--convert-links the --no-clobber is discarded in favour of
--convert-links
""
that is:
wget --recursive --no-clobber --convert-links
that does break many examples on t
Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 schrieb Daniel Stenberg:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> >> It shares no code with current Wget, AFAICT.
> >
> > 90% correct. I already rewrote the basic parts for Mget, so a big bunch
> > of work is done.
>
> I'm far from sure about that. You rewrote signi
Am Thursday 16 August 2012 schrieb Paul Wratt:
> just a note (and observation)
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > You can find millions of examples and references using the wget 1.x in
> > the internet, in printed articles, etc. To not break all these examples,
> > wget
just a note (and observation)
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
>
> You can find millions of examples and references using the wget 1.x in the
> internet, in printed articles, etc. To not break all these examples, wget 2
> should be backward compatibel with wget 1.x.
>
the cur
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
It shares no code with current Wget, AFAICT.
90% correct. I already rewrote the basic parts for Mget, so a big bunch of
work is done.
I'm far from sure about that. You rewrote significant portions of a 15+ years
old project with lots of "proven in us
Am Monday 13 August 2012 schrieb Micah Cowan:
> On 08/13/2012 03:06 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> >> But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to
> >> wget 1.x) wget 2.0. We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code
> >> archite
On 08/13/2012 03:06 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
>
>> But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to
>> wget 1.x) wget 2.0. We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code
>> architecture to have a clean codebase for new features to im
Am Monday 13 August 2012 schrieb Micah Cowan:
> On 08/13/2012 02:01 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > And now back to Micah and Niwt. How can we join forces ?
> > It should make sense to share code / libraries and parts of the test
> > code.
>
> It should be noted that I chose a MIT/2-clause BSD-style l
On 08/13/2012 02:01 AM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> And now back to Micah and Niwt. How can we join forces ?
> It should make sense to share code / libraries and parts of the test code.
It should be noted that I chose a MIT/2-clause BSD-style license for
Niwt, so any sharing would necessarily be one-dir
Am Monday 13 August 2012 schrieb Daniel Stenberg:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to wget
> > 1.x) wget 2.0. We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code
> > architecture to have a clean codebase for new features to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to wget
1.x) wget 2.0. We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code architecture
to have a clean codebase for new features to implement, to increase
readability/hackability, to increas
Hi people,
Micah has brilliant ideas for a promising next-gen tool (Niwt) and I am really
excited how it develops.
But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to wget 1.x)
wget 2.0.
We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code architecture to have a clean
codebase for
16 matches
Mail list logo
