Re: [squid-users] Re: Squid http1.1 vs http1.0 (probably again)

Oliver Schoett wrote:
> Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> Aha, I knew this was around somewhere.
>> This is effectively the TODO list for HTTP/1.1 compliance if you are
>> interested in sponsoring anyone to help with it:
>> http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=411&hide_resolved=1
>>
>
> Due to the 2.x / 3.x version split, this can become confusing, as the
> state of this bug and its dependencies may be different in 2.x and in
> 3.x, and the Bugzilla dependency list does not reflect that. For
> example, bug 7 (which can hurt performance badly) is supposedly fixed in
> 2.7, but not yet in 3.x.

The way we do bugs here mitigates that a little. A clear comment when
either version is patched and pushing the open target to another higher
(numerically) version until all relevant releases are closed.

There are so many 3.x-specific bugs its rare that bugs scheduled for 2.x
get a 3.x fix before the 2.x has patched and pushed it over.

Features are largely the reverse. Ported down. With the exception of
Adrians work.

Amos

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