Let's focus on rescuing 3.0 back to stable, so that developers prefer
to develop on 3.x than 2.x
On 25 Jun 2006, at 09:28, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> * Any release plans depending on forcing something to get done is a
> risky one.
> * Open Source development works by interest, not force.
> * The single thing holding Squid-3 back is the fact that it's not
> stable. Until Squid-3 is stable it's very hard to shift development
> over
> there, and even harder to draw customer attention.
We are at the point where we need to stop being general, and start
being very specific, about HOW Squid-3 is "not stable". What are the
measures of stability? How do we prove to each other that Squid-3 is
stable or unstable?
I expect the answer to be in two parts:
1. an empirical definition of "stable". I.e. a way of testing that
Squid-3 is *actually* stable (maybe running in production somewhere,
or passing other tests that are currently failed)
2. a set of bugs in Bugzilla which, when fixed, should take us up to
this standard
My feeling is that we are close enough that our next PRE can take us
within reach of RC1. At which point I shall fly to Stockholm, remove
my trousers and dance around Sergels Torg.
Doug
Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 03:07:48 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 12:00:02 MDT