On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:25 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Jeremy Hall wrote: > > > > > Let me second this. When you start asking questions about squid3 and > > > its stability, you get anything from "it's stable" to "not for prime > > > time" and when you ask questions about using it in a production > > > environment, most shy away from that. > > > > * noone's really stepped up to drag Squid-3 up to production quality. > > The bugs are relatively well-known and the issues with the codebase > > show up in bugzilla. > > I am working on dragging Squid3 to production quality and fixing bugs > that are present in my environment. There are other folks doing that as > well. Please do not try to persuade people to help you with your Squid2 > projects by attacking Squid3. > > > * People seem to think we can keep adding functionality without fixing > > the Squid core. Which is a mess, and in my opinion, needs to be fixed > > first. > > I agree. Personally, I am against adding new features to Squid 3.0. > > > We need to spend time fixing the Squid internals and getting all of that > > fast, flexible and rock stable so stuff like ICAP can be implemented > > better. > > Agreed. I wish you could work on Squid3 internals instead of Squid2, but > it is your call and I respect your choice. Let's just not assume that > all work is done or should be done on Squid2. > > Thank you, > > Alex. > P.S. FWIW, ICAP support is already pretty good in Squid3, regardless of > the internals (that are getting better as well).
Hey, I'm sorry if I came across a little more stabby than usual. I'm just fairly upset with the development process and somewhat lack of progress that we've made over the last few years. I think it'll be easier in the short to medium term to get people to run a modified Squid-2 to drop in-place of their existing Squid-2 than to get Squid-3 run up. Part of the trouble I have is finding testers and doing development on Squid-2 as a base fixes that. Please don't stop hacking on Squid-3 because I don't agree with the current codebase. :) What I hope will happen is the development done in storework will eventually spin off another major release branch and keep interest in the project alive. I then hope someone starts cherry-picking from -2 to -3. I don't want to development on -3 until its stabilised as I'm worried that I'm just making it harder to figure out where the problems lie. At least in Squid-2 I can suck over the changes made as people find and fix bugs in Squid-2.6. Besides, I'm about to start asking the really hard questions which'll somewhat determine where things head from now. Stuff like "Threaded or multi-process?", "What should our backend storage look like?", "Callback or event-driven?", "How should we abstract out network and disk IO to make Windows/UNIX porting an easier task?", etc. Thats applicable no matter which path we've chosen. :) Adrian