Re: Squid 2.8 Roadmap

I'm not against that, as long as 2.8 isn't rigidly feature-locked. It would be a bit weird, IMO, but I can live with 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       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com