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

Thanks, Alex -- that's actually quite helpful.

It might be good to have a *little* more process around how ones
sponsors changes in Squid -- whether -2 or -3 -- to assure that
there's coordination between the feature sets, and that the entire
Squid developer community is bought into the changes.

More detail on the roadmap would also be useful; potential sponsors
need more information about what's involved in the changes, what the
risks are, and how long it will take / how much it will cost.

WRT responsible sponsoring: I'm willing to pay a (reasonable) premium
to get the things that I pay to get into -2 into -3 as well, as long
as -3 doesn't block -2 (which AFAICT it wouldn't). I'm not willing to
do that in perpetuity, though.

Cheers,

On 08/03/2008, at 4:46 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>
> Below you will find my personal comments on a few hand-picked thoughts
> (from various posters) that I consider important on this thread:
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 08:44 -0800, Michael Puckett wrote:
>> If there is one killer app that tops all other functionality
>> additions it would be to multi-thread Squid so that it can
>> perform on multi-cores.
>
> Ability to perform on multiple cores is a performance/scalability
> optimization. We obviously do want Squid to perform and scale better,
> and are working on that.
>
> Squid3 already has several mechanisms that would make such work
> easier.
> Folks that need faster Squid, including CPU-core scalability
> optimizations, should consider contributing time or money to the
> cause,
> keeping in mind that it is a serious project and it will require
> cooperation with other developers and projects.
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 11:26 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Again, parity with -2 isn't enough; why would someone pay for
>> something they can already get in -2 if it meets their needs?
>
> Nobody should pay for something they do not need. However, any sponsor
> should consider the long-term sustainability of an old or new feature
> they rely on: Will the feature I need be included in the next major
> Squid version? Do I need cooperation and trust of Squid developers?
> Do I
> want a fork dedicated to my needs? These questions are often as
> important as the "How much would it cost me to make Squid do Foo by
> the
> end of the month?" question.
>
> Currently, sponsors have significant impact on Squid direction.
> There is
> a lot of implied responsibility that comes with that influence. Please
> use your power with care.
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 01:15 +0000, Dodd, Tony wrote:
>> development on -3 seems entirely ad-hoc, with no direction; whereas
>> -2
>> development is entirely focused [...]. I could be talking entirely
>> out of turn here though, as I haven't seen a -3 roadmap.
>
>> The second thing [...] the majority of squid developers don't seem to
>> get, is that the big users of squid are businesses.
>
>> The truth of it is, as much as you guys tell yourselves that
>> your userbase is people who run one or two cache boxes in their
>> basements to cache their lan internet access, and that there's no
>> money
>> in squid, ...
>
>> I've spoken to Adrian too many times to count on two hands about this
>> whole thing, and if you guys are trying to re-invent the wheel, you
>> may as well stop now.
>
> I am not sure how to say this the right way, but when your opinion is
> based on a single and often extremely biased source of information,
> your
> perception of reality becomes so distorted, that it is very difficult
> for others to respond.
>
> Your assumptions about the "majority of squid developers" are simply
> wrong.
>
> Believe it or not, we understand your situation fairly well. Nobody I
> know is asking you to upgrade to Squid3, for example.
>
> What I would suggest is that you make a fundamental choice: Do you
> want
> to collaborate with the Squid project (as a whole)? If yes, we will do
> our best to address your short-term and long-term needs. If no, I am
> sure your dedicated developer will do his best to address your needs
> within or outside the project.
>
> Collaborating with an open source project is difficult because you
> have
> to cooperate with others and balance different needs, all while
> struggling with inefficiencies of a weak decision-making structure.
> Whether collaboration benefits are worth the trouble, is something you
> have to decide. I certainly hope they are.
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 18:17 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support
>>
>> 12 months away on my draft Squid-2 roadmap, if there was enough
>> commercial interest.
>
> 11 months away on Squid-3 roadmap if there is enough commercial
> interest. And I will also throw in a 90% chance that the feature will
> also be in Squid4 without a major porting effort. Wait, wait, and a
> 10%
> off coupon!
>
> But, really, this is _not_ the way Squid features should be planned or
> sponsorship should be solicited, and I trust Adrian knows that.
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 11:26 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> While I'm in a mood for ruffling feathers (*grin*),
>> it might also help to have the "core" discussions in public
>
> Discussions that may benefit from public input should, and usually do,
> happen on squid-dev or squid-users, even if they start on squid-core.
> That covers the majority of the topics. There is not much "how the
> Core
> should respond?", "dirty laundry", "personal", or "offensive to
> somebody" stuff that we have to keep private. Any multi-person
> organization has these trust layers, naturally.
>
>
> I hope the above comments will clarify my personal position. I would
> love to work with more users that, besides pulling hard in their
> direction, would think of the project as a whole, accepting the fact
> that Squid will always try to satisfy several conflicting needs.
>
> The list of "missing" Squid3 features was a useful outcome of this
> thread. I will make sure those wishes are added to Squid3 roadmap.
>
> If you have other specific suggestions on where and how the project
> should move, there are developers willing to listen.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Alex.
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com