Re: Squid-3 release cycle
tor 2007-04-12 klockan 20:31 +0200 skrev Guido Serassio: Here I think that a methodical comparison between 2.6 and 3.0 is needed. Not so sure. Find it much more important Squid-3 is stable than feature complete wrt 2.6. Probably there are a lot of not so big changes missing in 3.0. Very likely. But except for bug fixes I do not consider this very important at the moment. If it's missing and the fact that it's missing itches someone then it will probably get done. If not maybe something else more useful gets done. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: Squid-3 release cycle
tor 2007-04-12 klockan 13:19 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov: IMO, if we can support enough directives to accommodate 51% of current Squid2 users, that is enough. More importantly, thanks to the new major features of Squid-3 such as a good ICAP client we might attract new users again, not only existing users. For those the fact that there is some other small things in Squid-2 not yet seen in Squid-3 is not so important if what they need is provided by Squid-3. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: Squid-3 release cycle
tis 2007-04-10 klockan 21:38 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov: Squid 3.1 is whatever comes after a stable 3.0 release. Open to experimentation. Not currently branched (but could be if needed). I think it might be wise to branch Squid-3.0 after PRE6, and that the model currently used for Squid-2 is then applied to Squid-3 as well. - HEAD always kept open for new reasonably stable stuff, allowing development to progress natuarlly without having completed stuff bitrotting in some seldom looked at development branch. - If problems is seen in HEAD they get fixed, or the changes causing the problems is thrown out back to their development branch until fixed. - Stuff which seem to have settled gets merged to the stable branch by the release manager (in person or delegated to patch owner whatever suits the release manager). This works very well at least as long as HEAD and the stable branch hasn't diverged too much. And if they have diverged too much it's probably time to plan a new stable version before long.. With the unordered development process we have it's very hard to build firm plans on what features will be in a certain release before it's there. It very much depends on what the active developers at the time is working on. What is important for the project survival is that HEAD is kept reasonably stable and always suitable as development reference, and that developments is merged incrementally when possible to catch problems early without sacrificing the stability criteria too much. Question then becomes, where is the existing list of agreed features for 3.0-STABLE1 ?? Whatever features have been committed already minus unstable optional features. This is just my understanding, of course. Not claiming to express the elusive consensus here... Shared here. But I'd probably not minus the unstable optional features, just not having then enabled by default and marked as experimental. Squid-3.0 was originally supposed to match Squid-2.5 except being C++. It's already far beyond that. Sadly over time Squid-2 and Squid-3 has diverged a bit from each other and for the foreseeable future there will be some features missing in Squid-3 only to be found in Squid-2. But assuming Squid-3 gets stable it should quickly gain ground and the gap from Squid-2 will shorten as people gets interested in what Squid-3 can provide and there gets some motivation to get the important missing things to Squid-3 as well. Some of the missing things probably isn't very important, and can be left to rot in Squid-2 when focus gets moved to Squid-3. The probably biggest yell from users will be the lack of support for passthru connection oriented authentication (NTLM/Negotiate/Kerberos), aka connection pinning. The rest of the feature gaps is pretty minor I think. Internally the gaps is a bit bigger, especially at the comm layer where the comm loops of Squid-2 is much lighter.. but both is definitely hitting the wall when it comes to SSL and how to integrate it into the comm loops in a sane manner and there is need for some serious thought on how the comm layer should look like, which if done in Squid-3 will most likely bring it far ahead of Squid-2 in that area. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: Squid-3 release cycle
Hi Henrik, At 17.18 05/05/2006, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: For those who have not been on the #squid-dev IRC channel lately I can tell that the last weeks has been quite interesting. The most significant news is that Doug Dixon (aka ganso on the IRC) has volunteered for the role as Squid-3.0.PRE4 release manager. Expect a message from him shortly presenting his ideas on how we can get there. This is a very good news :-) To follow up on a few questions from him regarding the current state: The Squid-3 tree is currently best described as in DEVEL state, even if it is carrying a PRE tag. The reason to this is that the original Squid-3.0 release cycle could not be met due to various events and the tree had to be unlocked again to allow for new developments. The goal now should be to be able to enter PRE state again, with ultimately a PRE4 release from where we can work towards the STABLE release. I do not think there is any major changes waiting in queue for getting into Squid-3, and imho minor/isolated features like WCCPv2 or a improved COSS may well get into the tree during a PRE cycle. But there is a quite long list of bugs, both verified and to be analyzed ones. Some critical, many not so critical ones.. Developers having new features in queue which they would like to get into Squid-3.0 please speak up now, allowing for Doug to do his job proper. As for all of us his time is somewhat limited and the timeframe currently considered for a PRE4 release is not very distant. In my queue there some minor changes related to MinGW Windows support: - configure.in Makefile.am - some additional source library for missing functions on Windows (getopt, rusage, strtok_r) The majority of this work is already present in the nt branch, but I like to refactor something in a better way before the addition to HEAD. I like too that the changes based on the old Roberts's IPC refactoring work could go in Squid 3.0: http://www.squid-cache.org/~robertc/ipc.refactoring.patch http://www.squid-cache.org/~robertc/ipc.h Currently these changes are included in the nt branch (they are mandatory for Windows support) and I have opened the ipc branch with all the changes: http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#ipc But I have a big problem: my C++ knowledge is still not enough for this job ... :-( Some help on this could be very useful. Regards Guido - Guido Serassio Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
Squid-3 release cycle
For those who have not been on the #squid-dev IRC channel lately I can tell that the last weeks has been quite interesting. The most significant news is that Doug Dixon (aka ganso on the IRC) has volunteered for the role as Squid-3.0.PRE4 release manager. Expect a message from him shortly presenting his ideas on how we can get there. To follow up on a few questions from him regarding the current state: The Squid-3 tree is currently best described as in DEVEL state, even if it is carrying a PRE tag. The reason to this is that the original Squid-3.0 release cycle could not be met due to various events and the tree had to be unlocked again to allow for new developments. The goal now should be to be able to enter PRE state again, with ultimately a PRE4 release from where we can work towards the STABLE release. I do not think there is any major changes waiting in queue for getting into Squid-3, and imho minor/isolated features like WCCPv2 or a improved COSS may well get into the tree during a PRE cycle. But there is a quite long list of bugs, both verified and to be analyzed ones. Some critical, many not so critical ones.. Developers having new features in queue which they would like to get into Squid-3.0 please speak up now, allowing for Doug to do his job proper. As for all of us his time is somewhat limited and the timeframe currently considered for a PRE4 release is not very distant. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
