Re: Merging current Cacheboy changes into Squid-2.HEAD ?

+1. I think keeping the name 'squid' is OK as long as people get/stay
in the habit of using the version number as part of the name.

WRT these specific changes -- my only concern is that if there aren't
any user-visible enhancements to entice people to try it out, 2.8
won't get adoption and therefore won't get testing. Just doing
restructuring only offers adopters risk with no reward.

Cheers,

On 08/07/2008, at 1:28 AM, Kinkie wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian_at_squid-
> cache.org> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Now that I've finished my first round of restructuring and have begun
>> moving onto round two, I'd like to see how interested the users and
>> developers are in me merging what I've done thus far back into
>> Squid-2.HEAD in preparation for a Squid-2.8 release in a few months.
>>
>> The bulk of it is simply restructuring. No major differences have
>> really begun to show up yet. They'll show up after round two of
>> restructuring and after another cacheboy (and hopefully Squid-2)
>> release cycle.
>>
>> I guess the big question here is "do users/developers want to see
>> Squid-2 development pick up in the direction Adrian thinks it should
>> go in."
>
> I can see no reason why it shouldn't.
> In my opinion, since you have decided to continue development of Squid
> 2, you can choose what direction to evolve it in.
> And I see it much more useful for everyone if the name of your project
> remains "Squid 2.X" (whatever X may be) rather than changing to
> anything else.
>
> --
> /kinkie

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com