Re: Suggested 3.0 merge candidates

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@dont-contact.us>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:23:12 +1200 (NZST)

> The following is the list of patches I think should get backported to
> 3.0:
>
> - The fix for Bug #2001 after it's been verified proper with ICAP and
> large responses.. Backport mailed to squid-dev and in my bzr repository.
> Seems to pass all tests fine.

+1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If you
want to do the merge yourself Henrik, I'm okay with that.

> - Removed execute bit from various non-executable source files

Is there a security problem with them being set?
IMO its just a cleanup otherwise (already voted those not to go back).

>
> - Bug #2286: assertion failed: HttpHdrContRange.cc:100: "spec->length >=
> 0"
>
> - Fallback on transparent interception mode even if the connection
> didn't seem to be transparently intercepted

+1. I think this comes under the category of 2.x->3.1 gap-filler. They
were going to go in if small enough (as this seems to be).

>
> - Windows port: Released name of Longhorn Server is Windows Server 2008

This one I consider one of the cleanup patches (already voted not to go
back).
But if we get two votes for it. Fine, its small enough code change.

>
> - Bug #2299: src/ACLARP.cc fails to compile on Solaris 10
>
> - Bug #2265: --enable-icmp compile fails on FreeBSD
>

Everything labeled "Bug NNN" is default backport IMO unless I have a
reason not to (ie its a bug in the 3.1 new code).

Amos
Received on Mon Apr 07 2008 - 19:23:15 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 12:00:07 MDT