On Sun, 04 Jun 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 6/4/06, David James <djames@collab.net> wrote:
...
> >We took this same approach for ra_serf (i.e. work directly on trunk)
> >and it turned out quite well for us. I think that extra exposure,
> >review and testing of the SASL patches can only be good for our SASL
> >support.
>
> If I recall correctly, ra_serf was slightly different, code and
> configure glue showed up at about the same time. Regardless, I think
> I've stated my opinion, I don't think we should be adding configure
> glue for libraries that aren't actually used. Apparently other people
> disagree. Hopefully Vlad will come up with some actual code in the
> near future making this arguement pointless.
In general, especially with respect to new developers adding new
functionality incrementally, I'd rather see the work happen on a
branch until something functional has been produced. As the configure
glue has already been committed, I wouldn't bother yanking it (as
previously stated, there's more code to come), but would not like this
to be the de facto process for future drops.
Justin isn't exactly new to this project, so got more leeway with
ra_serf.
--
Daniel Rall
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon Jun 5 19:40:52 2006