Re: 2.5.STABLE2 around the corner

Does any of this in your opinion block a 2.5.STABLE2 release, or would
it be ok to fix these (if needed) after 2.5.STABLE2 is released?

To me none of the issues looks critical.

The 2.5.STABLE2 release is already way overdue and I do not want to
delay it much more..

Regards
Henrik

ons 2003-02-12 klockan 20.07 skrev Duane Wessels:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> > >From what I can tell everything is now in place for a 2.5.STABLE2
> > release, and the current 2.5.STABLE1-20020212 snapshot is to be regarded
> > as a 2.5.STABLE2 release candidate.
> >
> > If you can please give this a try to make sure there is nothing stupid
> > which really should be fixed before we roll 2.5.STABLE2.
>
> I'm keeping track of some minor bugs/changes that I would like to
> make to 2.5 before O'Reilly publishes the squid book. I'm willing
> to make the fixes, but am worried about breaking things (i.e., the
> way people expect things to be) in the stable versions. They are:
>
>
> CARP
>
> squid-2.5 CARP configuration/implementation is different
> than squid-2.x head. For example, 2.5 uses 'carp-load-factor='
> but 2.6 uses 'weight='
>
> annoying bug in Number of fields per header distribution
>
> Bug counts 0 fields per header when calling httpHeaderClean()
> for new headers, before they are even used:
>
> id #flds count %total
> 1 0 13363088 49.75
> 2 1 18216 0.07
> 3 2 979 0.00
> 4 3 19 0.00
> 5 4 1140906 4.25
> 6 5 1241749 4.62
> 7 6 168336 0.63
> 8 7 442458 1.65
> 9 8 859209 3.20
> 10 9 1958607 7.29
> 11 10 3070119 11.43
> 12 11 2823685 10.51
>
>
> ICP/HTCP treated differently. In some places, ICP and HTCP are
> treated as equivalent. For example, in "Peer Selection Algorithm"
> stats, "ICP" also counts HTCP. But in other places, HTCP is not
> also counted. For example:
>
> - "Number of ICP messages received"
> - "Number of ICP messages sent"
> - "Cache Client List" stats
> - "List of Unknown sites sending ICP messages"
> - ...cacheClientIcpRequests.A.B.C.D in SNMP
>
> syscalls.disk.unlinks confusion
>
> The counter is incremented for:
> - unlinks performed by main squid process
> - unlinks performed by DISKD processes
> The counter is not incremented for:
> - unlinks performed by AUFS threads
> - unlinks performed by the unlinkd process
>
> cachemgr "Cache Utilization" page
>
> this page gives too much detail to be useful to most
> users, and the name sucks. it should be removed.
>
> in storeCheckCachable(), no.release_request always 0
>
> because storeReleaseRequest() clears ENTRY_CACHABLE, and
> such objects get counted as no.not_entry_cachable instead
>
>
> FETCHES under "Cache Client List"
>
> the FETCHES number counts requests forwarded for any reason
> (ICP, HTCP, Cache Digests, default parent).
> Following the FETCHES count is a percentage, based on the
> number of ICP replies. This percentage may be larger
> than 100. Just remove the percentage, or only count
> fetches due to ICP?
>
> DISKD Q1, Q2 confusion
>
> documentation does not match the implementation. Tried to
> convince henrik of this before, but failed.
>
> Redirectors recieve URIs with whitespace
>
> if "uri_whitespace allow" then redirectors may receive
> URIs with whitespace and not properly parse them.
>
> IpcacheStats and FqdncacheStats
>
> I removed some members of IpcacheStats and FqdncacheStats
> in squid-2 HEAD, but did not MFC to squid-2.5 (or squid-3)

-- 
Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
MARA Systems AB, Sweden