Re: Download time issue: Squid 2.6

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 22:35 +0200, Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:
> * Alex Rousskov (rousskov@measurement-factory.com):
>
> > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:19 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> > > The PRE releases is meant to serve this purpose. Just that we don't make
> > > new PRE releases unless there has been significant improvements since
> > > the last and that there is no known major blockers..
> > >
> > > Squid-3 was known majorly broken for years, so no PRE releases was
> > > made.. and currently there is at least one blocker for PRE4 but with a
> > > patch pending.
> > >
> > > I don't think packaging PRE4 in ports when released is such a bad idea.
> > > But clearly labeled as a pre-release and not a stable "supported"
> > > release.
> >
> > I agree that it is a good idea to start tracking Squid3 PRE releases for
> > FreeBSD ports (and such). Hopefully, the releases will correspond to
> > major updates and will morph into a stable release in the foreseeable
> > future.
> >
> > Also, for "hot fixes" of a PRE release, a FreeBSD port can contain
> > patches. Many ports do that, of course.
>
> OK, my plan is to start tracking Squid 3 with PRE6. Are you OK if I
> keep it up to date by pulling in all changesets up to a certain
> date/changeset number (this would be roughly similar to what the FreeBSD
> vim port does) if needed? "Needed" would mean as indicated by developers
> on squid-users or -dev because critical issues had been fixed.

Sounds like a good plan to me. I would not try to automate or even
define any specific pull policy right now. Let's discuss what and how to
pull when the time comes for such updates, after PRE6 is released.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Mon Mar 26 2007 - 23:03:14 MDT