IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

[Julian Elischer]

On 4/08/2016 12:44 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> On 02.08.2016 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>   I don't have rights to commit my changes, and looks like I can not
> persuade others that my changes are Ok as-is, with all changes, made on
> requests from reviewers.
>
>   Personally, I think, that (1) + (2) is orthogonal to (3) and it should
> be different change sets, reviews, etc. And, yes, (3) is great feature
> by itself.
I think 1 on its own would have  good chance.. I'd probably commit it 
myself :-)
save-state  as a new keyword, that doesn't do a check-state.

2 is more esoteric. and sort of orthogonal to 1.

>
>> Do we have any movement on these improvements?
>> even similar functionality by different names is ok.
>>
>> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most
>> important for me. (store-state)?
>> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less important
>> for me.
>> 3/ multiple state tables? this was discussed and I thought I saw patches
>> but I haven't seen it going in,  <-- super luxurious
just noticed this IS in...