Re: squid3 comments

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> 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).

Hey, I'm sorry if I came across a little more stabby than usual. I'm just fairly
upset with the development process and somewhat lack of progress that we've
made over the last few years.

I think it'll be easier in the short to medium term to get people to run
a modified Squid-2 to drop in-place of their existing Squid-2 than to get
Squid-3 run up. Part of the trouble I have is finding testers and doing
development on Squid-2 as a base fixes that.

Please don't stop hacking on Squid-3 because I don't agree with the current
codebase. :) What I hope will happen is the development done in storework
will eventually spin off another major release branch and keep interest
in the project alive. I then hope someone starts cherry-picking from -2 to -3.

I don't want to development on -3 until its stabilised as I'm worried that
I'm just making it harder to figure out where the problems lie. At least in Squid-2
I can suck over the changes made as people find and fix bugs in Squid-2.6.

Besides, I'm about to start asking the really hard questions which'll somewhat
determine where things head from now. Stuff like "Threaded or multi-process?",
"What should our backend storage look like?", "Callback or event-driven?",
"How should we abstract out network and disk IO to make Windows/UNIX porting
an easier task?", etc. Thats applicable no matter which path we've chosen. :)

Adrian
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 20:42:41 MST