Re: squid-3 vs 2.6

Hi Henrik,

At 15.23 24/06/2006, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>Regarding new features in Squid-3 I think the devel.squid-cache.org
>model should now be followed quite strictly.
>
> 1. A new feature is developed in a floating branch using the vcs of
>choice (i.e. CVS with our scripts or Baz).
>
> 2. Any bug fixes or similar plumbing work done while implementing the
>new feature is trickled back into mainline. The branch should be kept
>clean with only the new feature.
>
> 3. When the new feature is ready and used in production it's announced
>as ready for merging, and placed in the merge queue with review etc..

I agree.

>This development model is what has made the 2.6 release possible in the
>short timeframe available.
>
> > Thanks - good to know the history. I repeat what I said before about
> > having this kind of stuff on the website: we need an up to date News
> > section + homepage coverage. Otherwise only about 6 people in the
> > entire world know about it. What we're missing is an easy way to
> > update the main web content, otherwise it won't get done... Can we
> > port the entire website to the new Wiki?
>
>We indeed need a more living homepage.. unfortunately none of the
>project members likes spending time with writing web pages..

What about to look for a not developer webmaster ?
A skilled Squid "power user" could be enough for a good majority of
the changes.

> > Would everyone on this list support the following:
> >
> > 1. No more 2.x development - new features must be against 3.x
>
>Sorry, until Squid-3.0.STABLE is in such shape that it can run in
>production without the admins having to worry all night this won't
>happen. Even if we all promise. Simple fact of life..
>
>But as soon as we get Squid-3 in production quality shape this should
>apply I think.

I agree.

> > 2. Release 3.0.STABLE as quickly as possible (stability is priority,
> > still may lack features from 2.6)
>
>Yes.

Here I agree about the reasons, but I am doubtful about a 3.0 with
not all the 2.6 features:
why someone will "downgrade" its proxy ?
Just for example: all my customers are waiting for connection pinning
with open arms ....

> > 3. Release 3.1 soon after that (feature complete, 2.6 is obsoleted)
>
>To be honest I think the two will coexists for some time. But Squid-3
>will win over time.

I remember the proposal when 2.6 work was announced:

1) 3.0 initially mainly for high end reverse proxies (ICAP & ESI) and
2.6 for forward proxies
2) 3.1 for both usage with all features.

It seems to me a good compromise for a customer.

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 Sat Jun 24 2006 - 11:02:09 MDT