* Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:19 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > The PRE releases is meant to serve this purpose. Just that we don't make > > new PRE releases unless there has been significant improvements since > > the last and that there is no known major blockers.. > > > > Squid-3 was known majorly broken for years, so no PRE releases was > > made.. and currently there is at least one blocker for PRE4 but with a > > patch pending. > > > > I don't think packaging PRE4 in ports when released is such a bad idea. > > But clearly labeled as a pre-release and not a stable "supported" > > release. > > I agree that it is a good idea to start tracking Squid3 PRE releases for > FreeBSD ports (and such). Hopefully, the releases will correspond to > major updates and will morph into a stable release in the foreseeable > future. > > Also, for "hot fixes" of a PRE release, a FreeBSD port can contain > patches. Many ports do that, of course. OK, my plan is to start tracking Squid 3 with PRE6. Are you OK if I keep it up to date by pulling in all changesets up to a certain date/changeset number (this would be roughly similar to what the FreeBSD vim port does) if needed? "Needed" would mean as indicated by developers on squid-users or -dev because critical issues had been fixed.
