Re: 3.0 branding - release plans - etc

On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 12:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> sön 2006-09-10 klockan 21:52 +1000 skrev Robert Collins:
>
> > I think 3.0 STABLE1 when release should be:
> > * more functional than 2.6 STABLEX - there should be no regressions in
> > functionality.
>
> I disagree. It's more important that we get 3.0.STABLE out bugfree than
> feature complete.
>
> In my view the PRE4 release is feature complete, save for stuff which
> can easily be forward ported (i.e. WCCP2, COSS).

I think what we have right now is feature complete. So I think we are
both happy with this right now.

> Most of the stuff not yet forward ported isn't generally needed in the
> average setup, and I don't see us being hurt significantly if these
> isn't in the 3.0 release. If there is community interest in these
> features then I am pretty sure we will see them getting forward ported
> to Squid-3 when stable.

Sure.

> > * within 10-15% of the speed of 2.6 STABLEX.
>
> If possible yes. Stability is more important at this time. But
> performance is important indeed, especially for larger installations who
> is also the most likely to sponsor developments..
>
> > Why the speed requirement? Because a slow 3.0 will turn people off it,
> > and thats hard to recover from. "Last time I tried squid-3.x it was dog
> > slow, blech."
>
> Yes, but I don't agree it's that slow. Sure 2.6 is faster, but 3 is not
> dog slow in comparison.

Well, I dont know where the line should be drawn. But we should be
willing to get some figure on the relative performance to make a
judgement call on this.

> > So heres a proposal: end of october, presuming all bugs are contained,
> > we release 3.0 FC-1 - which stands for 'Feature Complete'. From now to
> > then is just bugfixen etc.
>
> I dislike introducing yet another release tag. The PREx releases is
> already supposed to be feature complete but perhaps not bug free or
> performing as well as STABLE. I think we just have to bite out own mess
> and start following our own release plans and stop introducing new stuff
> in 3.0.
>
> Other than that yes, but with FC-1 being PRE5 and FC-2 being PRE6.

I'm ok with this too. I mainly want the incremental releases, and for it
to HAPPEN.

> > We do *whatever it takes* architecturally and code wise to fix the
> > release blocking bugs, and to get 3.0's speed sufficiently fast that we
> > are all happy to call FC-??? STABLE-1.
>
> Yes.
>
> > That means that large changes which are aimed at performance will be
> > considered ok during the FC series.
>
> Yes.
>
> If you ask me such changes is accepted even during a STABLE cycle, as
> long as the change can be verified to
>
> a) Not require/introduce new features (must)
> b) Not destabilize the code (verified within reason)
> c) We all agree that the performance gain is worth the internal API
> changes.

I think its less ok during a STABLE cycle - increased risk of customer
impact.

Rob

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