On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:45:31PM +0100, Bruno Henc wrote:
> Hello Nick,
The guy was called "Mark", but I agree that 25% of the letters are right.
> Haproxy-1.9 is acting strange under certain conditions,
Huh ? What's this story ? haproxy-1.9 was released 4 months ago and is
in stable status, which means perfectly supported with developers looking
at all reported bugs. So "acting strange under certain conditions" doesn't
absolutely match any specific bug report that the development team is
aware of and is just FUD. I'm sorry but that doesn't help narrow an issue
down. And maybe the bug there also affects other versions (most bugs
detected late after a release tend to impact multiple versions).
> I would recommend following the usual procedure when dealing with such bugs:
> bisecting.
Bisecting is not for users by default, it's too much of a pain and will
obviously end up in the middle of dirty development, which exactly is what
you don't want to run on production. So no, please *do not* bisect. A
reproducer is much better so that developers can bisect without putting
the user's production at risk.
> Ideally, you should start with HAProxy 1.7 and work your way to HAProxy 1.9
> . This is a bit tedious, especially because of the configuration changes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another gratuitous assertion ? Please check history, we've always been
extremely careful not to break existing configs. Lots of people are still
using configs written for 1.1 15 years ago with no modification. Usually
when we remove a feature it's been unused for many years, so it's very
unlikely that jumping to 1.9 from 1.6 will require any change. It may
*suggest* changes to avoid some warnings but these ones are not needed
during the first stage of the migration. Forward compatibility has always
been an extremely high goal on this project.
Please don't spread wrong information like this, it only causes confusion
and really doesn't help anyone.
Thanks,
Willy
