Re: squid-3 vs 2.6

From: Adrian Chadd <>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:21:16 +0800

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006, Doug Dixon wrote:

> We are at the point where we need to stop being general, and start
> being very specific, about HOW Squid-3 is "not stable". What are the
> measures of stability? How do we prove to each other that Squid-3 is
> stable or unstable?

IMHO we lost out because the scope of squid-3 became less and less "abstract
out the stuff that we're doing in Squid-2.5 that can be represented with a simple
move to C++ classes" and started on the path of rewriting large chunks of code.

Its good that this has stopped. :)

> I expect the answer to be in two parts:
> 1. an empirical definition of "stable". I.e. a way of testing that
> Squid-3 is *actually* stable (maybe running in production somewhere,
> or passing other tests that are currently failed)
> 2. a set of bugs in Bugzilla which, when fixed, should take us up to
> this standard

3. Don't change anything unless its directly related to making something
stable; no matter how simple the change is.

> My feeling is that we are close enough that our next PRE can take us
> within reach of RC1. At which point I shall fly to Stockholm, remove
> my trousers and dance around Sergels Torg.

I agree. Squid-3 is much more stable then it was a few months ago.

Lets all learn from this for the next major squid rework. :)

Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 03:18:46 MDT

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