On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> HAProxy 2.3-dev5 was released on 2020/09/25. It added 104 new commits
> after version 2.3-dev4.

Thanks for doing this one, Christopher, you definitely saved me quite
some time, allowing me to progress further on the listeners :-)

(...)
> All this description is probably a bit cryptic and it does not do Willy's
> work justice. It was amazingly hard and painful to unmangle. But, it was a
> mandatory step to add the QUIC support. The next changes to come in this
> area are about the way listeners, receivers and proxies are started,
> stopped, paused or resumed.

I'm starting to see the end of the tunnel there (well just a little bit of
light), as well as some stuff that will still cause some trouble but
overall we're soon about to be able to declare a QUIC listener, with
a stream protocol for the upper layers with datagram for the lower ones.
This will also remove a lot of the ugly tricks that were needed for the
log forwarder (such as the fake "bind" lines that silently ignore unknown
keywords).

Among the upcoming changes that I mentioned a while ago that I'd still like
to see done before 2.3, there was:
  - setting log-send-hostname by default
  - enabling tune.fd.edge-triggered by default
  - changing the way "http-reuse safe" works for backend H2 connections
    to avoid mixing two clients over the same connection and avoid head
    of line blocking

We're already at end of September, we must really finish quickly what's
still in progress and think about stabilizing. I know we've been late on
2.2 but that didn't remove development time on 2.3 since all that was
done before 2.2 was released is still there :-) So let's say that what
is not merged in two weeks by 9th october will go to -next so that we
still have a few weeks left to fix bugs, test and document.

In addition I'd like that for 2.4 we further shorten the merge window,
that's still far too long, as we spend most of the bug-fixing time after
the release instead of before, which is counter-productive. So we'll
need to have pending stuff in -next anyway.

Cheers,
Willy

Reply via email to