Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap

Well,

I am interested in speed, features and ICAP.
So I like -2 and -3 to merge.

It seems to me that for the sake of being polite with each other
we do not want to call the -2 / -3 issue a fork, but effectively
it really is a fork.

So here is my question back to the main maintainers:
do you want to undo the fork and merge ?
Note this: for a merge there are 2 ways:
1) port functionality from -3 to -2
2) port functionality from -2 to -3

-Marcus

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm quite disappointed in the lack of feedback from the community over this.
> Its hard to figure out what people want if noone speaks up, so this is your
> time to speak up.
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Hello Squid folk,
>>
>> I maintain Yahoo!'s internal build of Squid, and serve as a resource
>> for the various Y! properties that use it.
>>
>> We currently only use Squid-2, and don't have plans to migrate to
>> Squid-3; although ESI, ICAP as well as eCAP look interesting, there
>> are too many critical features (e.g., collapsed fowarding, refresh
>> stale hit, full Vary/ETag support, not to mention several things in
>> 2.7DEVEL0) missing for us to use it. Additionally, anecdotal evidence
>> shows that it's still too unstable and slow for production use where
>> these aspects are important; or at least, there is enough doubt about
>> them to make switching too risky for too little benefit.
>>
>> I know that there's a lot of water under the bridge WRT -2 vs -3, and
>> don't want to stir up what must seem like a very old discussion to the
>> developers. However, there's not much clarity about the situation WRT
>> 2 vs 3, and we've been in this state for a long period of time.
>>
>> Specifically, a few questions for the developers of Squid:
>>
>> * Besides the availability of *CAP and ESI -- which are very
>> specialised, and of interest only to a subset of Squid users -- is
>> there any user-visible benefit to switching to -3?
>>
>> * What do the developers consider to be a success metric for -3?
>> I.e., when will maintenance on -2 stop?
>>
>> * Until that time, what is the development philosophy for Squid-2?
>> Will it be only maintained, or will new features be added / rewrites
>> be done as (possibly sponsored) resources are available? Looking at
>> <http://wiki.squid-cache.org/RoadMap/Squid2 >, it seems to be the latter;
>> is that the correct interpretation?
>>
>> * If that success metric is not reached, what is the contingency
>> plan?
>>
>> * How will these answers change if a substantial number of users
>> willingfully choose to stay on -2 (and not just because they neglect
>> to update their software)?
>>
>>
>> Also, a few questions for -users:
>>
>> * Who is using -3 in production now? How are you using it (load,
>> use case, etc.) and what are your experiences?
>>
>> * Who is planning to use -3 soon? Why?
>>
>> * Who is not planning to use -3 soon? Why not?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
>>
>
Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 07:28:12 MST