Re: [squid-users] Roadmap Squid 3.2

On 08.03.2012 06:35, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 03:15 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> The checklist I have to work by is at
>> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ReleaseProcess#Squid-3
>> We are looping around at the "freeze" stage (3), waiting to reach 0
>> major+ bugs before we can start the stable release countdown stages
>> (4+).
>>
>>
>> We are intending 3.2 to supersede and obsolete all 3.x and 2.x
>> series
>> releases. Which means there are just over 50 bugs rated major or
>> higher
>> which need to be confirmed as fixed in 3.2, or downgraded before 3.2
>> can
>> start its stability countdown.
>>
>> A lot of these bugs, particularly 2.x ones, just need somebody to
>> check and verify that the described behaviour is not reproducible in
>> 3.2
>> anymore. At which point they can be closed against target of 3.2.
>> Another half dozen or so got closed this month, but there are many
>> more
>> to go.
>
> I think it is neither reasonable nor practical to make Squid v3.2
> "stable" designation dependent on 2.x bugs, especially those filed
> years
> ago with insufficient information. Squid v3.2 can be stable
> regardless
> of what bugs the old 2.x version had.

The 2.x and 3.0 ones updated >6 months ago with insufficient
information to even reproduce should be closed with a 4-week warning /
last call for info. They should all have minor/normal status anyway and
not be what is under discussion here.

Most of the major+ ones should have sufficient info for someone with
specific environment or software to reproduce. A lot just seem to
require specific software we do not have easily available within the dev
team.
  The LDAP special-characters and escaping bugs for instance, just need
someone with a real LDAP server (not a test script) to configure a dummy
account and see if login works now. A real server is important there
because it is the servers interpretation of helper calls which is the
bug.

>
> Sure, it would be very good to go through and close all bugs, but I
> do
> not see enough folks jumping at such opportunity in the foreseeable
> future (at least partially because such exercise would have little to
> do
> with Squid v3.2 actual stability!).
>
> I suggest that v2.x bugs without Squid3 confirmations are ignored
> when
> it comes to deciding whether Squid v3.2 is stable.

"all" is the dream, "major or higher" is the release requirement. I
made a point that they just need to be checked by someone with the
ability/environment to reproduce.

Thank you for your help in weeding out a few more today. We just hit 45
:)

Amos
Received on Wed Mar 07 2012 - 22:59:37 MST