Re: Release Schedule

On 20 Aug 2001 22:08:29 -0600, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
>
> > Worse than that. I'm using the sourceforge ntlm-tag (which is better than
> > what I'm running now in production, a 2.4-DEVEL3-NTLM-worse-than-hell).
> > Unfortunately it can't be avoided. I _HAVE_TO_ properly implement NTLM
> > authentication NOW.
> > On the plus side, Aug 10 ntlm branch has faitfully served over 5.5 million
> > hits
> > over 10 days (before crashing, but I try not to think to that).
>
> *laugh* WHat did it crash on? :)

Don't ask. Or do, we won't tell. Oh, alright then. It died because of
too many requests in the stateful helper queue, which was because all 10
helpers thought that they were pinned to requests, the bug being that
the requests had gone away leaving the helpers 'stuck'. Stateful
protocols arrghg.

> > > This is really starting to irk me somewhat. I'd suggest
> > > either creating
> > > a 2.5 branch for you guys to keep doing NTLM stuff on, or force you
> > > two to MFC the NTLM and auth code back to squid-2.4.

Sure, lets call it 2.5 Pre-Stable :]. It's been over 6 months since 2.4
when stable.

> > No way to do that. Auth-changes are way to wide.

... way too wide. The whole modular authentication code has to be
backported - and that is quite substantial now.

> Ok. Perhaps we should branch off squid-2.5 soon?

Please. Any items to be merged in before that?
I suggest Henriks' external acl code (if the auth changes I did a few
weeks back solved the block there). I'd like to suggest the automake
branch as well (IF and only if automake 1.5 is released beforehand), but
as I've had no feedback from the developers (automake doesn't impact the
end users) I won't suggest that :}.

> > > I note that more and more people on squid-users are using squid-2.5
> > > in production, and its rather scary for the developers. Well, at
> > > least me. :-)

I suspect that its the NTLM code, and possibly the Vary code that is
attractive.

> The question is getting 2.4 and 2.5 out the door. I still think we
> should just tag stable2 with how the squid-2.4 branch looks now.
> I then think we should just branch 2.5. Its messy, but I don't see
> any other option. I think 2.5 has the options in it that we targeted
> a while back on the squid-dev list.
>
> Ok. Here's my vote:
>
> * tag squid-2.4stable2
> * branch the squid-2.5 branch
> * tag squid-2.5devel1
-- whats this tag? (is it applied to the branch or to HEAD?

> Once 2.5 has been tested a little more widely we can stuff squid24 into
> maintanence mode and concentrate on making 2.5 rock solid, whilst working
> on new features for 2.6 .
>
> Any other votes? Duane, Henrik, Robert?

I agree - see above for detail:]
Received on Mon Aug 20 2001 - 23:30:21 MDT