Re: Squid-3.2 stable countdown : 2, 1 ...

On 06.08.2012 07:51, Justin Stottlemyer wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently built/recompiled 2.6Stable (currently in use at my company
> in
> other places) 2.7 Stable, 3.1.20, and 3.2.latest build. I've
> deployed
> squid dozens of times at different places and as usual ran into some
> problems on the newer / later builds. I'm interested in seeing
> where you
> are heading, possibly mentioning some of the problems I ran into (
> silentish errors) and seeing where discussions are currently leading.

That would be great Justin, thank you. I'm actively trying to resolve
all these minor glitches in 3.2+ and make the upgrade process more
seamless.

The version forks were:
  2.5->2.6->2.7->3.2
  2.5->3.0->3.1->3.2

2.6/2.7->3.0/3.1 cross-fork upgrade issues are not that interesting,
since the version features were so different various sized issues
including complete blockers are to be expected.

But the X.Y -> 3.2 transition is very important to get seamless or at
least documented clearly now that we are officially re-merging the 2.x
fork. Any input you can help provide towards writing a release notes
section, or pointing out remaining "bungled config" issues, would be a
great help.

NP: The key tool being promoted to ease those upgrades is "squid -k
parse" and its output.

>
> I have figured out my configuration to get things working and its not
> the
> prettiest but it is definitely very functional. Squid 3.2 looks to
> have
> everything I would want it to have, I just want to try and keep
> abreast of
> where things are for now.
>
> I once again considered some alternatives like Varnish (missing
> features),
> and lighttpd with mod_cache ( Not sure I want to bother) and as usual
> came
> back to Squid.
>
> I saw mention of no bugs in 14 days in squid 3.2 so I thought I would
> ask
> if I should help out and re-compile the latest automated 3.2 build
> and
> attempt to re-use my configuration and mention any of the problems I
> run
> into, if they are still there.

Please do. Our testing infrastructure still has a light coverage on the
tests it can perform, so we do rely on real installations a lot for
reporting how the releases are going.

>
> In addition, is this team still interested in 3.1 bugs?

We are. If they are resolved already in 3.2 they get closed against
that release and we (usually) won't donate time re-fixing. But it is
still good to have a record that they existed, since the OS
distributions are largely still shipping 3.1 packages for a few years to
come. You just have to be careful to check the closed bugs as well
before reporting to avoid "already-fixed" duplicates.

Amos
Received on Sun Aug 05 2012 - 22:35:21 MDT