Re: Squid-3.0.PRE4 release plan

Hi Doug,

At 00.32 08/05/2006, Doug Dixon wrote:

>Hi Guido
>
>I agree it would be nice to release a "trustworthy" Squid-3.0.PRE4.
>
>Three things however:
>
>1) Our aim is not to produce a PRE4 of a known high quality, but to
>produce a PRE4 that is as good as it can be by the deadline.
>2) I picked the bugs on the basis of their severity as described in
>Bugzilla. If there are other bugs (it sounds like there are) that
>fall into the severe and blocker categories, it's important that we
>go through and make sure the severity field is set correctly.

3.0 bugs description in Bugzilla not always is accurate. Many times
the severity was set by the reporter, and for a reporter, any squid
crash is a blocker ... :-)

>3) While I'm happy to swap bugs in and out of the todo list, I don't
>want it to grow demoralisingly large for the deadline we have. It's
>important to release something.
>
>Going through the bugs you have flagged up:
>
>1089 (Possible instability on aborted POST/PUT requests) - patched in
>2.5 - is this an easy port? Also, is it related to 772 which is
>already PRE4?
>1465 (assertion failed: mem_node.cc:65: "n->write_pending") - yeah
>sounds bad
>1125 (memCopy: could not find start of [337,4433)) - yeah looks like
>a much-reported bad one, and I *think* is already PRE4 in the guise
>of 1028
>975 (Long document containing ESI includes crashes squid) - looks
>pretty important to ESI
>1088 (Segmentation fault in string handling of ESI) - looks pretty
>important to ESI
>801 (with netfilter - segfault) - pretty specific usage here?
>1468 (Crash on HttpHdrRange.cc line 568: assertion failed on
>"valid") - yeah sounds bad
>1494 (asserts crash squid too often) - fair complaint, a bit vague,
>but we should look at it
>
>1200 (HTTP Response Splitting attack) - patched in 2.5 - is this an
>easy port?
>1265 (httpReadReply: Excess data from ... can be silenced in many
>cases) - patched in 2.5 - is this an easy port?
>
>
>As I say, I am happy to manipulate the list, especially in the first
>few days. So how about this:
>
>First, I think we should probably push the ESI bugs forward to PRE5.

I think that a similar plan could be good. We should try to assign
now a deadline (PRE4, PRE5, etc) to te majority of the open bugs.

>Second, hopefully the bugs above that have 2.5 patches can be forward
>ported quite easily - so I'll add them.

Some of the remaining PATCH25 bugs is not so easy to port: the C++
code refactoring has changed too much some sections in the source or
in the logic.
May be that some of they is no more present in the new code, but this
must be investigated.

>Bugs to potentially add to the list:
> * 1089 (PATCH25)
> *1465
> * 1125 (although, is this really 1028 which is already in there?)
> * 1468
> * 1200 (PATCH25)
> * 1265 (PATCH25)
>
>Bugs to potentially remove from the list:
> * 942 (squid-3.0-PRE3-20040309 uncached 304's broken)
> * 897 (Extra CRLF Added After Headers)
> * 951 (Assert failure in ESIInclude.cc:563: "parent.getRaw()")
>
>
>Are we happy to defer ESI stuff (951, 975, 1088) to PRE5?
>Are we happy to defer 801 and 1494 to PRE5?
>Are we happy to remove 942 and 897 from PRE4?

Yes to all proposal.

Regards

Guido

-
========================================================
Guido Serassio
Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner
Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY
Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115
Email: guido.serassio@acmeconsulting.it
WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
Received on Mon May 08 2006 - 02:00:56 MDT