Re: squid3 comments

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:25 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Jeremy Hall wrote:
>
> > Let me second this. When you start asking questions about squid3 and
> > its stability, you get anything from "it's stable" to "not for prime
> > time" and when you ask questions about using it in a production
> > environment, most shy away from that.
>
> * noone's really stepped up to drag Squid-3 up to production quality.
> The bugs are relatively well-known and the issues with the codebase
> show up in bugzilla.

I am working on dragging Squid3 to production quality and fixing bugs
that are present in my environment. There are other folks doing that as
well. Please do not try to persuade people to help you with your Squid2
projects by attacking Squid3.

> * People seem to think we can keep adding functionality without fixing
> the Squid core. Which is a mess, and in my opinion, needs to be fixed
> first.

I agree. Personally, I am against adding new features to Squid 3.0.

> We need to spend time fixing the Squid internals and getting all of that
> fast, flexible and rock stable so stuff like ICAP can be implemented
> better.

Agreed. I wish you could work on Squid3 internals instead of Squid2, but
it is your call and I respect your choice. Let's just not assume that
all work is done or should be done on Squid2.

Thank you,

Alex.
P.S. FWIW, ICAP support is already pretty good in Squid3, regardless of
the internals (that are getting better as well).
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 15:18:29 MST