Re: PRE4 update

Hi

Although 2.6 has been making the headlines recently (nice work), 3.0
is still ticking along.

We're still at 7 open bugs, but that's mainly because the commit
queue needs some attention:

    * Two patches to 3.0 have been submitted and need applying
(thanks Gonzalo)
    * Three patches to 2.5 need forward porting to 3.0

This then leaves 1125 and 1465.

Duane is looking at 1465, and I'll have a look at 1125 (although with
so many duplicated bugs it's staring to look like a bit of a graveyard)

So... it's not looking too bad for releasing on 10/11 June - as long
as we can the bulk of these commits done well in time.

Cheers
Doug

On 14 May 2006, at 18:14, Doug Dixon wrote:

> Just to remind you, we're aiming to release Squid-3.0.PRE4 on 10/11
> June - four weeks from now.
>
> The good news so far is that we're down from 9 to 7 bugs, as Henrik
> fixed one, and another was found to be its duplicate. I'm claiming
> an assist because I asked enough stupid questions to make Henrik
> fix the bug just to shut me up :)
>
> Of the remaining 7 bugs, two were already assigned to Rob and the
> rest are unassigned.
>
> ID Sev Pri Plt Assignee Status Resolution Summary
> 1125 cri P2 Oth robertc@squid-cache.org NEW memCopy: could
> not find start of [337,4433)
> 772 blo P2 All squid-bugs@squid-cache.org NEW POST not
> handled correctly on errors (auth etc)
> 1089 cri P2 Oth squid-bugs@squid-cache.org NEW Possible
> instability on aborted POST/PUT requests
> 1355 blo P2 PC squid-bugs@squid-cache.org NEW segmentation
> fault in sslConnectTimeout
> 1465 cri P2 PC squid-bugs@squid-cache.org NEW assertion
> failed: mem_node.cc:65: "n->write_pending"
> 1468 cri P2 PC squid-bugs@squid-cache.org NEW Crash on
> HttpHdrRange.cc line 568: assertion failed on "...
> 624 blo P2 PC robertc@squid-cache.org ASSI assertion failed:
> stmem.cc:270: "0" (mem_hdr::debugDump:...
>
>
> Quite a few of these bugs appear to be most appropriately
> assignable to either Henrik or Rob because of previous involvement
> (and in some cases fixes against 2.5) for the bug in question.
>
> However, I'm aware this may be too much work for them in the
> timeframe we've given ourselves. Henrik, Rob - how do you feel
> about your workloads/available time?
>
> To help get a better idea of the manpower the PRE4 effort has at
> its disposal, could each member of this list who is has time to
> work on fixes for PRE4 in the next 4 weeks please reply saying
> roughly how much time they can spare, and if possible volunteer to
> help with one or more of the above bugs? (Personally, I've got
> about 5 hours a week and I'm initially going to look at bug 1468.)
>
> Again, if you feel the above bugs are too much of a commitment, but
> you still want to contribute to PRE4, that's great. If you submit
> any fixes for smaller bugs in the next 2-3 weeks, those fixes will
> be in PRE4 - and it will be better as a result. Just assign bugs to
> yourself so everyone knows you're working on them, and go for it.
>
> Thanks
> Doug
Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 04:05:05 MDT