For that matter, we could get all of this into 2.7, if we relax it...
On 23/01/2010, at 11:02 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Now that Adrian has moved his work to Lusca, it looks like the Squid 2.8 >> roadmap <http://wiki.squid-cache.org/RoadMap/Squid2> isn't reflecting >> reality (please correct me if I'm wrong, adri!). >> Although I don't want to accelerate 2.x work, nor get in the way of 3.x >> work, I think it would be good to solidify a lot of the improvements in >> 2.HEAD into a proper release, so that people don't have to run with a lot of >> patches from HEAD. >> In particular, I'd like to see the following patches in 2.8 (or 2.7STABLE, >> but AIUI that's not appropriate, in most cases). >> * Logging rewritten URLs - bug 2406 >> * Make PEER_TCP_MAGIC_COUNT configurable - bug 2377 >> * hier_code ACL - bug 2390 >> * HTCP / extension method patches - by benno, including 1235[3-5], 12358, >> 12364, 1236[7,8], 12427, 1245[5,6] patches >> * 64bit crash with PURGE and HTCP - bug 2799 >> * Add old entry back to async object - bug 2832 >> * CLR segfault - bug 2788 >> * Direct peer monitoring - bug 2643 >> * Adjustable latency stats - bug 2345 >> * Adjustable collapsed forwarding timeouts - bug 2504 >> * Idempotent start - bug 2599 >> * Configurable forward max tries - bug 2632 >> * Request body buffering - bug 2420 >> * HTCP logging - bug 2627 >> * ignore must-revalidate - bug 2645 >> * Aggressive caching - bug 2631 >> * Don't make fatal() dump core - bug 2673 >> * Make storeurl_rewriter work with Vary - bug 2678 >> * Make miss_access a slow lookup - bug 2688 >> I'm happy to help with documenting these, etc. as much as required, although >> I'm not really up to full release management. Any guidance, etc. would be >> helpful. >> WRT the roadmap, is the best thing to do to remove the current information >> and start collecting a list of applicable bugs? Or can we just give them a >> Milestone of 2.8 in bugzilla? >> Cheers, > > I know I don't have a lot of say in this, but here is my 2c anyway... > > If Henrik and you agree that 2.HEAD is stable enough for poduction use I wont > objects. Even while reaching a point that 2.8 might happen saddens me, I can > see that it might be needed. > > I'm happy with simply renaming 2.HEAD -> 2.8 formally. But not really with > branching a new release. Opening HEAD again for a possible 2.9 is IMO a bad > idea. > > Making 2.8 formally the terminal 2.x release while allowing the possibility > that its feature set is not as stone-fixed as earlier 2.x. > > Amos > -- > Please be using > Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE7 or 3.0.STABLE21 > Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.15 -- Mark Nottingham m...@yahoo-inc.com