Re: so what is involved in calling squid-3.0 'stable'?

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 00:58 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
>
> On 23/04/2006 12:41 a.m., Robert Collins wrote:
> > Asking adrian on irc - '
> > 22:34 < adrian__> Enough people using it as a traditional forward cache
> > 22:34 < adrian__> and saying there aren't any strange problems
> > 22:34 < adrian__> Because its got a bad name
> > '
> >
> > So, what is required. How can we engage the community in making squid-3
> > stable ? There seems to be non-trivial interest in making it happen, but
> > whats the actual benchmark ?
>
> I'll start using it again and pushing forward with bug reports if there's
> someone there to work on them...last time I tried squid-3 I was seeing some odd
> stuff with client side connections being closed randomly and requiring frequent
> refreshing with my end browser, but at the time I didn't gather anything useful.

There are definately people doing things around the source - I think
harnessing the energy is the issue. I only have a small amount of time,
and I'll probably be using it on toolchain support to make it easier for
others to fix bugs - because thats something effective I can do in the
timeframes I have available.

I've added some missing files - I could swear I had added them. Is that
better?

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.