On Sun, Aug 27, 2006, Robert Collins wrote: > I'll hold it in a branch indefinately then. If we get some good traction > this coming weekend - the bug-fixing-fest - I will be much happier about > it sitting in a branch for a month, maybe two, than if we dont.
Oh, it'll happen. It'll be useful if we can pull in a few more C++-cluey people into the fold. If this one is even moderately successful I think it would be useful to extend the invitation to squid-users. As long as people who join are willing to code and not complain. :) > With regards to the sit-down-and-nut-out - refactoring is /defined/ as > 'improving the design of existing code'. I really think its fine to > refactor to make incremental improvements. This is in no way > incompatible with: > * doing a design overhaul and setting a new target for the refactoring > * Doing a rewrite of some chunks of the code base. > > The primary benefit I'm aiming at is a squid which is easily amenable to > writing unit tests: so that we can be confident regressions are not > occuring. Its a good goal. The trouble is that you're creating new APIs just by refactoring. It might be easy to change the API(s) at the point you've done the refactoring but I don't think it'll be so easy to do later on as other code is brought into line to use the new API(s). Adrian
