Re: Proposed branch tag performance patch for feature

[Larry Jones]

Kelly F. Hickel writes:
> 
> Well, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this.  I certainly never
> suggested that it be committed to stable without a patch for feature.

No, but my recollection is that you're working against stable, and then
Mark mentioned possibly committing changes, so I wanted to go on record
as opposing committing any changes to stable for this, at least at this
time.  The whole point of the stable branch is that it *is* stable --
the only changes are bug fixes (or, with sufficient justification, pure
enhancements that can't break existing functionality).

> also can't fully agree that it's purely an enhancement, in that in our
> environment it runs so slowly that if we can't improve the performance
> soon, we'll be forced to switch to some other tool, which I really don't
> want to do. 

I understand, but these kinds of changes are what the feature branch is
for, so that's where they belong.

> I've gone to a fair amount of effort to follow the requirements for
> changes, but at this point, before I spend more time on this I need to
> fully understand *exactly* what is required to get these changes
> committed. Particularly what is meant by the phrase "thoroughly tested
> on feature".

That's open to interpretation/negotiation.  :-)

I haven't been following your progress closely, but from a distance it
looks like you're pretty close to something that could reasonably be
committed to the feature branch.

-Larry Jones

Oh, what the heck.  I'll do it. -- Calvin