Re: client_side and comm_close

On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 11:47 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> > > Yes, then you left it by introducing something which exposed the bugs.
> >
> > The problems this thread is discussing were known before AsyncCalls.
>
> But they weren't exhibiting as -bugs-.

They were: assertion in bug2309 (and many other problems I personally
worked on) were "discovered" in Squid3 way before AsyncCalls (v3.0 and
earlier).

> > > Its great that we now know about the bugs - but now you've got a codebase
> > > that you're trying to stabilise
> >
> > This thread is not about stabilizing client-side code. It is about
> > changing its key classes and the relationships among them (for many
> > reasons). This will certainly destabilize the code short-term. If it
> > would not, I would not need to ask others opinion whether we should wait
> > with that work!
>
> I thought the focus on 3.1 - and I'd check, but the Wiki history for the
> Roadmap stuff I put in early in the 3.1 roadmap cycle - was to focus on
> stability and performance.
...
> _I_ helped start building the 3.1 roadmap, if you remember. _I_ helped
> draft the notion that 3.1 should be about performance and stability
> fixes.

This thread is (was) dedicated to the discussion whether _adjusting_
v3.1 roadmap to add client-side cleanup is a good idea. Since we have
more than one person working on the project, we should try to coordinate
significant changes. If you think client-side cleanup is a bad idea for
v3.1, just post your arguments -- no reason to talk about AsyncCalls or
other unrelated matters (which can be discussed in other threads, of
course).

As for v3.1 original focus that "you put in early", I do not even want
to argue about that, and I am happy to assume that your original v3.1
"roadmap" was exactly what we should have done.

What matters though, is the _current_ Squid3 roadmap, which we are
trying to base on specific commitments of specific folks. It is far from
perfect, but I think it is improving and reflects the current reality
reasonably well.

> If you want people to adopt Squid-3 then you should try and bring
> another stable release out with IPv6 (once all of -those- issues are
> fixed) and without too much quirkiness, and soon.

We already have a Squid3 release that is reasonably stable and
improving. I am not sure why we need to rush v3.1 out when the planned
features have not been completed yet. (And did not you claim that IPv6
as a Squid feature is not really important? This thread is not about
IPv6 though.)

Alex.
Received on Tue Apr 22 2008 - 14:54:14 MDT