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

On 06/03/2008, at 12:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> stale-if-error
>> stale-while-revalidate
> - Um, so why did you (the sponsor for these two I believe) not also
> request their addition in -3 for future-proofing your install app?

Because -3 isn't on our roadmap, for the reasons cited. If it appears
there, I imagine we could easily fund the conversion (although I
should check with H to see if that was already included; to be frank,
it wasn't really even on my radar).

>> You need to find a killer app for -3 that has broader appeal than
>> just
>> ICAP and ESI.
>
> 3.0 was about parity with needs. It failed some in that regard.
> 3.1 is about making up that failure plus some.
> Is seamless IPv6, SSL control, and weighted round-robin not enough
> of a
> killer app for you?

Not particularly. The thing is, for most any functionality, I can get
there more quickly by funding it in -2; until -3 is ready for
production use, it doesn't make sense to fund features in it (see
above).

A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support (and the perf
advantages that it would bring), or something else that the re-
architecture makes possible that isn't easy in -2. AIUI, though, that
isn't the case; i.e., -3 doesn't make this significantly easier.

> Well, to shed some light on things (I hate secrecy too). The core
> discussions are all about what we are going to publicly say so we
> don't
> contradict ourselves and confuse people too much. Often personal
> messages
> between individuals. We ruffle each others feathers at times too.
> None of
> which is something people exactly want public. The rest is going
> through
> squid-dev and squid-users.

Well, I guess that's good to hear, but I do note that having a private
"core" list on an OS project is AFAIK not that common.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com