| > * when updating to the forthcoming rev04 of the current rev03 of the Faster Restart | > draft, one needs to track the old changes and it is difficult to say now what the | > changes will look like | > | Agree. But don't think this is an obstacle to merging as we are | running obsolete code in other branch/mainline ;-) | That is not what I meant. Of course it is not an obstacle of getting code `in', but the problem is in getting the code `out' or updated when there is time for a new revision. When there is little or no documentation in the code saying which variable or piece of code belongs where, then each time someone wants to change a bit of code has to reverse- engineer what actually is going on. This can be very time-consuming. So I was not thinking in terms of merging (although I am sure that Arnaldo will pick out bad code), but of keeping the code changeable for a longer period and easier to update. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean your code here, it is a general problem which I think we should pay more attention to. And, as said, my ideas of keeping things separate may not be the best possible solution, only one that I could think of at the moment. | > * the CCID3 code is currently facing the following revisions | > - the current code implements rev00 | > - Tommi's CCID4 relies on rev01 (not sure about Leandro's) | > - your FR code actually would need rev02 | > - rev02 is in the process of being revised and obsoleted into rev03 | > | Agree all the versions are a mess. I think it's worthwhile starting on | upgrading the code base but not a project I'm undertaking at the | moment (or you). Hopefully there will be some IETF consolidation about rfc3448bis in December, then all this could be reduced to one revision. Imagine -- 4 different developers and 3 different draft versions :( - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
