On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:35 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> If Squid-3.0.STABLE is realistic within a not too distant future then
> Squid-2.6 is not needed and would in fact hurt Squid in the long run, no
> matter how temting the release it may be to myself and others.
>
> If Squid-3.0.STABLE is not realistic in the near future (months, not
> years) then the proposed Squid-2.6 in my eyes is highly needed, and would
> in the long run probably allow Squid-3.0.STABLE sooner rather than later
> even if there is some dissapointment with current sponsors.
I agree. Duane and I hope to see Squid3 stable in our environments by
the end of 2005 or so. This does not include design fixes (an on-going
effort) and features we can live without (e.g., NTLM authentication,
LDAP support, or Windows port).
If more folks start focusing on Squid3 stability problems (excluding new
features), we can indeed see an official STABLE designation within
months, I guess. On the other hand, we failed to find Squid developers
with enough spare cycles last time we shopped around. Still looking...
Alex.
Received on Mon Nov 07 2005 - 11:00:22 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 12:00:15 MST