Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 09:20 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Hello,
Should we remove Obsolete releases from
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/ which looks scary enough
without them?
Should say Older, not Obsolete..
It's only PRE releases, which by definiton is obsolete when the STABLE
is out.
I think these got the Obsolete label while the new round of Squid-3.0
was in PRE state, to set them apart from the newer PRE releases as there
is a very significant difference between the two.. but such distinction
is no longer relevant, and not even kept on that page.
They were removed initially when STABLE1 came out but I added them back
after some squid-user comments abut the huge gap between initial and
current being the scary thing.
With them present those admin can at least get some re-assurance from
seeing the real development/change period was only 2.5 years (PRE4+),
not the 6 years it seems at first glance.
2-3 years is not unreasonable for a re-code of major software.
To make things clearer we could move all older release to a separate
page "Archived older Squid-3.0 releases". This removes any confusion
there may be about what releases are current and what are obsolete..
I propose that the same headings used for 2.6 is used for 3.0 as well.
- Current STABLE release, suitable for production use
- Daily auto-generated release.
This is the most recent code committed to the SQUID_3_0 branch.
- Older STABLE Releases
- Older Release Candidates
- PRE release history
Agreed and changed.
While we are at it what about the text and links following the releases
table.
* The Pending bugs link might be useful for 2.x.
* The fixed bugs list is getting so long is it still useful for the
stable releases? changesets may show a better list of fixed major bugs.
Should we remove "Not available yet" groups from
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/HEAD/ to avoid confusion that
Squid3 has no stable releases or that 3.HEAD will eventually have them?
Squid-2 HEAD says "None planned. This is a development tree." which is
more to the point I think.
Agreed. Fixed that.
What about adding a link to the latest production releases page?
Also:
v3/HEAD/make.sh errors with 'ls *.diff' no sch files.
and there are no release notes made for head, so linking to them is
useless. I've removed the old links to 3.0.RC1 as being even worse than
nothing.
2.6 appears to have properly made release notes for 2.8.DEVEL0.
I think 3-HEAD should have them for 3.1.DEVEL0 at the least.
Should we remove the talk about DEVEL, PRE, and STABLE from the first
paragraph at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ because that page does
not really use those labels. The paragraphs at the bottom are probably
enough. The usability of those labels is a separate topic; let's not
discuss it now.
Yes.
Yes remove or yes not discuss?
It would mean removing the mention of "First PRE release" from the
table. Which is probably a good idea to remove from that particular page
IMHO.
Should we remove date columns from the "Development Versions" table at
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ since they are misleading, wrong,
and mostly useless, especially for .HEAD snapshots.
Historically it's been the date the last STABLE tree branched from HEAD,
opening up the tree for commits which will only be seen in the next
STABLE generation after that. It's a measure on how long development for
the release has been in progress, and a valuable measure to keep I
think.
I'd remove the 'planned release date' though in favour of a link to the
RoadMap.
What is the purpose of the "First PRE Release Date" columns at
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ ?
Good question. It's not really relevant as PRE versions is not for
production, only testing and review to get used to the upcoming
features.
Drop 'em! IMHO. The per-version page should be the only place that info
is needed and of any use.
Amos
--
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
