Hi!
> If you feel SSL support being stable I would really like to > see a release. This is THE main reason for 1.5. I understand your point, but server side keep alives for example are important when you run SSL on the backend side, otherwise you end up establishing a new SSL session for each and every HTTP request. I doubt that would scale very well. > Please don't put the burdon of patching relevant fixes > to the current users. (It's not patching, but filtering which > patches are relevant). That was just a proposal; whether its achievable or not depends on you. Now if you are a multi national, multi billion dollar company implementing haproxy in a commercial product, you can probably justify the effort (or the risk of a unstable component in your product - in the end this is just a numbers game for a big company). If you are a haproxy end-user, I don't see why using a current snapshot of the code would hurt (*if you have the time to deploy an OSS solution*). Sure, you shoud not blindly upgrade to more recent code without extensively testing it first, but that may be a good thing to do with stable releases as well. If you don't have the time and need those bleeding edge features today, then you should probably stick to a commercial solution, like those from exceliance.fr or loadbalancer.org. I don't think releasing new stable branches every 6 months is a good thing, because in the end, you need long term support for this deployments. You don't want to upgrade from one stable major release to another every 12 months because of their deprecation, right? Can't have all the features in stable branches right away and then expect those branches to be supported for years to come, imho. But this are just my 2 cents as a haproxy user. Lukas
