Re: squid-3 vs 2.6

From: Henrik Nordstrom <>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:23:00 +0200

lör 2006-06-24 klockan 11:57 +1200 skrev Doug Dixon:

> You say "relatively small" - but with the potential to cause lots of
> instability.

Yes, or at least so for three of them.

collapsed_forwarding, ETag and connection pinning all introduces new
internal states in the request processing, and all impacts the general
request forwarding logics.. and the user perceived feature gains of
these is fairly small.

WCCPv2 is very isolated to itself. No issues there.

TPROXY is quite isolated.

Follow X-Forwarded-For looks relatively isolated, but perhaps not the
correct approach to the problem..

> Do you agree that most of these missing features would
> best be put in 3.1, after 3.0 has reached production stability?

collapsed_forwarding, ETag, Connection pinning and Follow
X-Forwarded-For is 3.1 candidates if you ask me.

WCCPv2 and TPROXY can go in whenever they are in shape for Squid-3.
Especially so WCCPv2.

> Perhaps the smaller and less risky ones might be acceptable into
> 3.0... but we must be very careful.

Regarding new features in Squid-3 I think the
model should now be followed quite strictly.

  1. A new feature is developed in a floating branch using the vcs of
choice (i.e. CVS with our scripts or Baz).

  2. Any bug fixes or similar plumbing work done while implementing the
new feature is trickled back into mainline. The branch should be kept
clean with only the new feature.

  3. When the new feature is ready and used in production it's announced
as ready for merging, and placed in the merge queue with review etc..

This development model is what has made the 2.6 release possible in the
short timeframe available.

> Thanks - good to know the history. I repeat what I said before about
> having this kind of stuff on the website: we need an up to date News
> section + homepage coverage. Otherwise only about 6 people in the
> entire world know about it. What we're missing is an easy way to
> update the main web content, otherwise it won't get done... Can we
> port the entire website to the new Wiki?

We indeed need a more living homepage.. unfortunately none of the
project members likes spending time with writing web pages..

> Would everyone on this list support the following:
> 1. No more 2.x development - new features must be against 3.x

Sorry, until Squid-3.0.STABLE is in such shape that it can run in
production without the admins having to worry all night this won't
happen. Even if we all promise. Simple fact of life..

But as soon as we get Squid-3 in production quality shape this should
apply I think.

> 2. Release 3.0.STABLE as quickly as possible (stability is priority,
> still may lack features from 2.6)


> 3. Release 3.1 soon after that (feature complete, 2.6 is obsoleted)

To be honest I think the two will coexists for some time. But Squid-3
will win over time.
> And I second the assessment that 3.0 is quite stable now. We should
> unite behind it!

Not quite there yet I am afraid.. but it now has the potential to get


Received on Sat Jun 24 2006 - 07:23:05 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 12:00:02 MDT