From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Renker Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:58:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] DCCP: Implement TFRC Faster Restart Message-Id: <200709041558.26097@strip-the-willow> List-Id: References: <200708291113.07431.ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <200708291113.07431.ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: dccp@vger.kernel.org | > * when updating to the forthcoming rev04 of the current rev03 of the F= aster Restart | > =A0 draft, one needs to track the old changes and it is difficult to s= ay now what the | > =A0 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 ne= w 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 ha= s to reverse- engineer what actually is going on. This can be very time-consuming. So I w= as 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 wh= ich I think we should pay more attention to. And, as said, my ideas of keeping things sepa= rate may not be the best possible solution, only one that I could think of at the moment. =20 | > * the CCID3 code is currently facing the following revisions | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - the current code implements rev00 | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Tommi's CCID4 relies on rev01 (not sure about Leandr= o's) | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - your FR code actually would need rev02 | > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - rev02 is in the process of being revised and obsolet= ed 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 Decembe= r, then all this could be reduced to one revision.=20 Imagine -- 4 different developers and 3 different draft versions :(