Re: squid-3 vs 2.6

sön 2006-06-25 klockan 02:11 +1200 skrev Reuben Farrelly:

> With 3 or 4 branches on the go, there is a lot of potential for users to get
> confused by this and people to run code with possibly wrong expectations about
> what support they can expect.

There should not be more than 3 branches. 2 STABLE in bug maintenance
only mode, one DEVEL for new features. Then on the side there may be a
number of new features developed to any combination of these depending
on the situation.

> I also think we should decide at some point how and for how much longer we are
> going to support 2.5 and 2.6 in the absence of sponsorship, and announce a
> roadmap soon so that users have lots of warning of what is coming up. We don't
> want to end up with 2.5, 2.6 and 3.0 in a stable cycle with 3.1 in development
> all at the same time at the end of this year ;)

Hopefully we have 2.6 and 3.0 in STABLE cycle, and 3.1 in development.
2.6 most likely stays in STABLE cycle for as long as there is
significant features not yet in Squid-3.

> 2. For Squid-2.6, a tentative date on the lifespan of Squid-2.6 as being
> supported for 8-12 months after 2.6-STABLE1 release date which takes it through
> to March-July next year (maybe a bit longer if it's not much work to maintain
> and/or it flushes out bugs that we can also forward port easily in 3.0).

I don't think we are in a situation to make any time related promises.
Those have never worked out well in the past..

> Once Squid-3 is out it should be the primary recommended version for use
> especially with any new installations and we should make sure that the wiki and
> website appropriately pushes people in that direction.

Yes.

Regards
Henrik