Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap

> Well,
>
> I am interested in speed, features and ICAP.
> So I like -2 and -3 to merge.
>
> It seems to me that for the sake of being polite with each other
> we do not want to call the -2 / -3 issue a fork, but effectively
> it really is a fork.
>
> So here is my question back to the main maintainers:
> do you want to undo the fork and merge ?
> Note this: for a merge there are 2 ways:
> 1) port functionality from -3 to -2
> 2) port functionality from -2 to -3

Don't forget the .5) tasks:
1.5) port all changes made to -3 since starting the base port to -2.
2.5) port all changes made to -2 since starting the base port to -3.

(1) would require a full re-code of -2 into C++ (repeating 6+ years of 3.x
development under a new name) in order to encompass the features of -3
that cannot be back-ported.

(2) requires info from you the users, about what features you need ported,
and some help on porting those over to -3.

Most of the developers are already working on this. We do want to close
the divide. We also have not yet had a sponsor willing to pay specifically
for any feature porting. So we are stuck with doing it whenever time is
available.

Changes are largely following (2). The decision was made years ago to
cleanup squid somewhat by only porting the features that you the users
found useful and wanted ported. That porting list comprise most of the 3.x
RoadMap.

As I and others keep posting:

      IF THERE IS ANYTHING MISSING LET US KNOW!

The 3.1 RoadMap will finalize in 3 (three) weeks. If you don't tell us
your feature needs by then you will be stuck waiting for 3.2+ or paying
large amounts for them to be done.

Amos

>
> -Marcus
>
>
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm quite disappointed in the lack of feedback from the community over
>> this.
>> Its hard to figure out what people want if noone speaks up, so this is
>> your
>> time to speak up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Hello Squid folk,
>>>
>>> I maintain Yahoo!'s internal build of Squid, and serve as a resource
>>> for the various Y! properties that use it.
>>>
>>> We currently only use Squid-2, and don't have plans to migrate to
>>> Squid-3; although ESI, ICAP as well as eCAP look interesting, there
>>> are too many critical features (e.g., collapsed fowarding, refresh
>>> stale hit, full Vary/ETag support, not to mention several things in
>>> 2.7DEVEL0) missing for us to use it. Additionally, anecdotal evidence
>>> shows that it's still too unstable and slow for production use where
>>> these aspects are important; or at least, there is enough doubt about
>>> them to make switching too risky for too little benefit.
>>>
>>> I know that there's a lot of water under the bridge WRT -2 vs -3, and
>>> don't want to stir up what must seem like a very old discussion to the
>>> developers. However, there's not much clarity about the situation WRT
>>> 2 vs 3, and we've been in this state for a long period of time.
>>>
>>> Specifically, a few questions for the developers of Squid:
>>>
>>> * Besides the availability of *CAP and ESI -- which are very
>>> specialised, and of interest only to a subset of Squid users -- is
>>> there any user-visible benefit to switching to -3?
>>>
>>> * What do the developers consider to be a success metric for -3?
>>> I.e., when will maintenance on -2 stop?
>>>
>>> * Until that time, what is the development philosophy for Squid-2?
>>> Will it be only maintained, or will new features be added / rewrites
>>> be done as (possibly sponsored) resources are available? Looking at
>>> <http://wiki.squid-cache.org/RoadMap/Squid2 >, it seems to be the
>>> latter;
>>> is that the correct interpretation?
>>>
>>> * If that success metric is not reached, what is the contingency
>>> plan?
>>>
>>> * How will these answers change if a substantial number of users
>>> willingfully choose to stay on -2 (and not just because they neglect
>>> to update their software)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, a few questions for -users:
>>>
>>> * Who is using -3 in production now? How are you using it (load,
>>> use case, etc.) and what are your experiences?
>>>
>>> * Who is planning to use -3 soon? Why?
>>>
>>> * Who is not planning to use -3 soon? Why not?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 19:39:56 MST