Re: Time for squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 14:46 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> - 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.
>
> I would be happy to see it backported to 3.0. It does not affect runtime
> code and does not affect old configs, so it should be safe.
>
> Eventually, things like that would go into the next minor release (i.e.,
> v3.1 in this case). Currently we have too many disruptive features going
> into minor releases and cannot release them often enough for the "keep
> the subreleases free of new features" scheme to work well.
>
>> 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?
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me, _considering_ being the operative word.
> We do not have a list of 1000 features to go through, so it does not
> have to be rigid and formal. We can decide on a case-by-case basis.

You catch my meaning exactly. Great.

I'm thinking some basic criteria in a 2-minute thought process along the
lines of:

Did it exist in 2.6 before 3.0? 2.7 before 3.1?
  - No => probably ignore.

Is it just a patch-and-tweak (not a lot of work)?
  - No => oh well

Is it a big change to existing code (_new_ code gets past this)?
  - Yes => oh well goodbye.

Is it worth a few minutes my time?
  - No => oh well, goodbye.

** Okay, it _might_ be worth it. Spot-check core for vetos.

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.