Re: [PATCH 0/6] DCCP: Implement TFRC Faster Restart

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

|  > * 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 :(