Re: Time for squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?

> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 12:04 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> > What about to release squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?
>> >
>> > I think that there are many patches already applied to HEAD-3 that
>> > could be applied also to SQUID_3_0.
>> >
>> > If needed, I could try to contribute in the back port of some patch.
>> >
>>
>> I've been thinking along those lines myself for a while.
>>
>> Its a question of who does it, and which changesets. Whan I last looked
>> at
>> it I found a number that I could not confirm whether or not they were
>> actually applicable to 3.0.
>>
>> There is also some small task of removing the back-ported changes from
>> the
>> 3-HEAD list of changes-since-3.0.
>>
>> I have some time now, if you like I can go through and pull up a list of
>> those changesets I think should go in and the original author say
>> yay/nay/backport-needed.
>
> Please do! IMO, most of the bug fixes should go back to 3.0. New
> features, including support for arbitrary request methods should not.

Agreed. The few things I was unsure about were:

 - Duanes adjustment of the copyright. Why he being the only one at the
time who had access to the 3.0 branch did not remove it there too.

 - include directive. Being a very minor feature, and existing in 2.x. I'm
undecide if it should be back-ported early to ease future upgrades from
2.6/2.7.

 - how to remove the back-ported changesets from the HEAD list. Still had
no help on this one and it is a bit of info I feel I need to keep the
changesets accurate.

On #2, what do you think of habitually considering back-porting where
possible, the features added to 3.1 that are actually forward-ports from
2.x? To keep at least the semblance that 3.0 follows 2.x in the upgrade
path?

Amos
Received on Wed Feb 20 2008 - 18:46:47 MST