Re: Download time issue: Squid 2.6

From: Henrik Nordstrom <>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:31:07 +0100

sön 2007-03-18 klockan 15:51 +0200 skrev Tsantilas Christos:
> Hi Henrik,
> I forgot that the squid-26 moved to a branch. The problem with icap
> patch is that it is HEAD based. In sourceforge I can not find any
> squid-2.6 branch, to create a squid26 based icap branch.

Yes, it's intentional that there is no Squid-2.6 base branch at
sourceforge, only Squid-2.HEAD. This was discussed on squid-dev when
Squid-2.6.STABLE forked.

The main reason is that Squid-2.HEAD acts as an incubator for changes
targeted for Squid-2 STABLE, and having development efforts not tracking
Squid-2.HEAD makes it harder to finish the work over time.

Now, this policy of not having a Squid-2.6.STABLE branch at SourceForge
is not set in stone, but I have not seen much good reasons why it should
be changed.

The only objection to the above raised was Guido who historically have
maintained SquidNT.STABLE at SourceForge, but after a short discussion
it was agreed that maintaining the SquidNT.STABLE branch is better done
in the main repository as an official STABLE Squid version.

With the Squid-2 ICAP client still being somewhat experimental I do not
consider it a good idea to use in combination with Squid-2.6.STABLE. I
would very much prefer if people uses Squid-2.HEAD + icap if they need
that functionality, and knowing that their Squid version is experimental
and not a STABLE version.

The recent bug reports is further evidence that this position is
reasonable. Several people coming yelling about Squid-2.6.STABLE
insability, not mentioning (or maybe not even realizing) that they have
applied significant experimental patches to their Squid version.

This said, Squid-2.HEAD is quite fit for production use most of the
time. I don't even have a significant problem with snapshot releases of
Squid-2.HEAD being packaged if someone likes, but we are not going to
make any formal releases from that source tree. What is in Squid-2.HEAD
either trickles into Squid-2.6.STABLE or forms the basis for a eventual
future Squid-2.7 when not compatible with 2.6.

> Does make sense to create the icap-patch as a file and upload it to web
> site? I think it is not bad idea to allow people to use it with squid26
> if they want it. Which is your advice?

Sure. Always makes sense to publish stable versions, but only if there
is a will to support them. If you do I would recommend changing the
Squid version number in to reflect the ICAP patch release
version to reduce confusion.

> At this time I do not want to continue development on squid2x-icap
> client but I want to keep icap patch synchronized with squid2x
> developments.

Ok. Fully fair position.

So the remaining question is if you agree with what I say above, or if
you think squid2-icap should be maintained relative to Squid-2.6 as


Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 16:31:13 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 12:00:01 MDT