Re: IPv6 developments for HEAD

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007, squid3@treenet.co.nz wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:24 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> >> Attached are two patches which constitute part of the core
>> developments
>> >> for protocol-independent handling of IP addresses in squid3.
>> >
>> > In your opinion, should these be committed to Squid 3.0? Are they
>> likely
>> > to cause short-term stability problems? Should they be applied to
>> Squid
>> > 3.1 instead?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > Alex.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. No. both?.
>>
>> I would like to see them in 3.0.
>>
>> The new object I am submitting is isolated 'infrastructure' which does
>> not
>> affect the rest of squid in any way. It is itself the stable base needed
>> for future work.
>> The update to rfc1035 is a reversal of previous changes which is again
>> stabilising that area a little more.
>>
>> I'm still a little fuzzy on the consensus of what the difference between
>> 3.0 and 3.1 is. I would like these to be applied to HEAD.
>
> Trouble is: squid-3 should've been released a long, long time ago and
> users
> should've been moved over to it. People kept commiting stuff to Squid-3 in
> the hopes of "tidying stuff up" and people (somewhat) forgot that fixing
> the
> bugs and getting the release out there's more important.

Agreed, which is the main reason I am witholding a further 170Kb of stable
update in my feature branch until the next (PRE6?) release is out or shown
to be too far away to matter.

As someone who has happily been using 3.0-PRE5 in production for about 5
months now I'm thinking more in terms of 3.0-PRE5, 3.0-PRE6, 3.0-PRE7,
working up towards 3.0-STABLE1 which has all the asked for features of
2.6-X than 3.0 / 3.1.

> So my humble opinion as someone who isn't currently working on Squid-3:
> fix whatever bugs people are seeing in production and get squid-3 stable.
> Release as squid-3.0. Step back and re-assess the list of features
> you'd like to see in squid-3.1. Be inundanted with bugs. Fix the bugs;
> then
> introduce agreed features. Release Squid-3.1. Be inundanted with bugs.
> Reassess the list of features you'd like to see in Squid-3.2. etc, etc.
>

Question then becomes, where is the existing list of agreed features for
3.0-STABLE1 ??

>
> Adrian
> (Sounds like I want to be release manager, doesn't it? eep.)
>
>

Trouble is the cleaner the code, the less bugs can hide in it.
Personally I'm of the opinion that bugs should be fixed in the latest
version and ported down to earlier versiosn that might need it rather than
up. Promotig the use of later better code by all users.

Amos
Received on Tue Apr 10 2007 - 19:28:04 MDT