Re: Squid-3.0.PRE4 release plan

Hi Guido

I agree it would be nice to release a "trustworthy" Squid-3.0.PRE4.

Three things however:

1) Our aim is not to produce a PRE4 of a known high quality, but to
produce a PRE4 that is as good as it can be by the deadline.
2) I picked the bugs on the basis of their severity as described in
Bugzilla. If there are other bugs (it sounds like there are) that
fall into the severe and blocker categories, it's important that we
go through and make sure the severity field is set correctly.
3) While I'm happy to swap bugs in and out of the todo list, I don't
want it to grow demoralisingly large for the deadline we have. It's
important to release something.

Going through the bugs you have flagged up:

1089 (Possible instability on aborted POST/PUT requests) - patched in
2.5 - is this an easy port? Also, is it related to 772 which is
already PRE4?
1465 (assertion failed: mem_node.cc:65: "n->write_pending") - yeah
sounds bad
1125 (memCopy: could not find start of [337,4433)) - yeah looks like
a much-reported bad one, and I *think* is already PRE4 in the guise
of 1028
975 (Long document containing ESI includes crashes squid) - looks
pretty important to ESI
1088 (Segmentation fault in string handling of ESI) - looks pretty
important to ESI
801 (with netfilter - segfault) - pretty specific usage here?
1468 (Crash on HttpHdrRange.cc line 568: assertion failed on
"valid") - yeah sounds bad
1494 (asserts crash squid too often) - fair complaint, a bit vague,
but we should look at it

1200 (HTTP Response Splitting attack) - patched in 2.5 - is this an
easy port?
1265 (httpReadReply: Excess data from ... can be silenced in many
cases) - patched in 2.5 - is this an easy port?

As I say, I am happy to manipulate the list, especially in the first
few days. So how about this:

First, I think we should probably push the ESI bugs forward to PRE5.
Second, hopefully the bugs above that have 2.5 patches can be forward
ported quite easily - so I'll add them.

Bugs to potentially add to the list:
    * 1089 (PATCH25)
    *1465
    * 1125 (although, is this really 1028 which is already in there?)
    * 1468
    * 1200 (PATCH25)
    * 1265 (PATCH25)

Bugs to potentially remove from the list:
    * 942 (squid-3.0-PRE3-20040309 uncached 304's broken)
    * 897 (Extra CRLF Added After Headers)
    * 951 (Assert failure in ESIInclude.cc:563: "parent.getRaw()")

Are we happy to defer ESI stuff (951, 975, 1088) to PRE5?
Are we happy to defer 801 and 1494 to PRE5?
Are we happy to remove 942 and 897 from PRE4?

Cheers
Doug

On 8 May 2006, at 05:22, Guido Serassio wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> At 22.27 06/05/2006, Doug Dixon wrote:
>
>> Okay - let's go with this:
>>
>> 1. Our aim is to release Squid-3.0.PRE4 snapshot over the weekend of
>> 10/11 June.
>>
>> 2. We will work to a fixed list of bugs: those that have "PRE4" in
>> the Status Whiteboard.
>> http://tinyurl.com/kaoqq
>>
>> This list contains the nine criticals/blockers as of today, so we are
>> still aiming at the most serious bugs.
>
> I don't agree this bug list: for me there are some other open bugs
> that should be fixed before PRE4:
>
> - 1089, 1465, 1125, 975 + 1088, 801, 1468, 1494 (stability)
> - 1200 + 1265 (security)
>
> A new Squid 3 PRE release must have an acceptable quality to be
> trustworthy after almost 3 years of inactivity.
>
> Regards
>
> Guido
>
>
>
> -
> ========================================================
> Guido Serassio
> Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner
> Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY
> Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115
> Email: guido.serassio@acmeconsulting.it
> WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
>
Received on Sun May 07 2006 - 16:32:31 MDT