On 16/09/2016 2:13 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote: > 2016-09-10 17:20 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries: > >> Well, I'm still in slight disagreement with Alex on how to group things >> -though that is mostly because we have not discussed it properly. >> >> If a sub-struct name cannot be agreed then bool members in the LogTags >> object is better than calling a sub-struct "flags" and only putting >> flags for failure conditions into it. >> >> I leave the final choice to you Eduard, we can always change it again >> after later discussions. > > If you think that "Flags" is too "neutral" for the sub-struct naming, > and it is questionable whether "ignored" flag can be numbered > as "Errors", we could name with, e.g., "Problems" or "Faults". Or > just leave "Errors", as it was before. >
Well, Alex and I are really disagreeeing on long-term things. As patch author on the spot for this that final choice is yours in regards to what goes in right now. If you could pick something and submit a final patch in the next few days I will apply it. I would really like to get this in the new releases this weekend (both 3.5 and 4.0). (ideally also a fix for the missing storeId() bug that has shown up in 3.5 - if there is anything like a solution in the works for that. I expect it was the Last-Modified backports). Amos _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
