Re: IPv6 developments for HEAD

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007, squid3@treenet.co.nz wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:24 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >> Attached are two patches which constitute part of the core developments
> >> for protocol-independent handling of IP addresses in squid3.
> >
> > In your opinion, should these be committed to Squid 3.0? Are they likely
> > to cause short-term stability problems? Should they be applied to Squid
> > 3.1 instead?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Alex.
> >
>
> Yes. No. both?.
>
> I would like to see them in 3.0.
>
> The new object I am submitting is isolated 'infrastructure' which does not
> affect the rest of squid in any way. It is itself the stable base needed
> for future work.
> The update to rfc1035 is a reversal of previous changes which is again
> stabilising that area a little more.
>
> I'm still a little fuzzy on the consensus of what the difference between
> 3.0 and 3.1 is. I would like these to be applied to HEAD.

Trouble is: squid-3 should've been released a long, long time ago and users
should've been moved over to it. People kept commiting stuff to Squid-3 in
the hopes of "tidying stuff up" and people (somewhat) forgot that fixing the
bugs and getting the release out there's more important.

So my humble opinion as someone who isn't currently working on Squid-3:
fix whatever bugs people are seeing in production and get squid-3 stable.
Release as squid-3.0. Step back and re-assess the list of features
you'd like to see in squid-3.1. Be inundanted with bugs. Fix the bugs; then
introduce agreed features. Release Squid-3.1. Be inundanted with bugs.
Reassess the list of features you'd like to see in Squid-3.2. etc, etc.

Adrian
(Sounds like I want to be release manager, doesn't it? eep.)
Received on Tue Apr 10 2007 - 17:59:48 MDT