Re: Time for squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?
Henrik Nordström wrote: ons 2008-02-20 klockan 12:04 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries: Henrik: It was suggested I ask you about how-to for editing the changesets. Seeing as I have stood up for 3.1 maintainer, I think I might get have some practice on 3.0. There is no editing, just classification & grouping. It's all done using symbolic links today. .group links to the main changeset of the group (or self if a lone patch) .nomerge marks a group as not suitable to be backported .merged links to the backported changeset To main work place to view as maintainer is changesets/merge.html of the prior branch (i.e. HEAD for 3.0 until 3.1 is branched) the changesets there marked with a ? there has not been grouped/classified yet. Workflow is to 1. Process the ? changesets bottom up, adding .group and .nomerge links where obvious. 2. Take a second pass over the patches and add more .nomerge links on things where there is doubt if it should be backported. 3. Apply the ones which apply cleanly. Don't forget to add an Author: line giving proper attribution, and copy the log message verbatim. Also help if the original changeset number is mentioned. 4. Ask to have the tricky ones backported. 5. Ask for backport votes on the stuff you aren't certain on. There is al long term goal to make this a little friendlier, but it's not given a very high priority, especially together with the VCS discussions... And when you get used to the symbolic links it's not so bad.. Regards Henrik Okay.everybody With that instruction (and a bit more on IRC). I'm off to patch 3.0 a lot... Amos -- Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+ There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
Re: Time for squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?
ons 2008-02-20 klockan 12:04 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries: > Henrik: >It was suggested I ask you about how-to for editing the changesets. > Seeing as I have stood up for 3.1 maintainer, I think I might get have > some practice on 3.0. There is no editing, just classification & grouping. It's all done using symbolic links today. .group links to the main changeset of the group (or self if a lone patch) .nomerge marks a group as not suitable to be backported .merged links to the backported changeset To main work place to view as maintainer is changesets/merge.html of the prior branch (i.e. HEAD for 3.0 until 3.1 is branched) the changesets there marked with a ? there has not been grouped/classified yet. Workflow is to 1. Process the ? changesets bottom up, adding .group and .nomerge links where obvious. 2. Take a second pass over the patches and add more .nomerge links on things where there is doubt if it should be backported. 3. Apply the ones which apply cleanly. Don't forget to add an Author: line giving proper attribution, and copy the log message verbatim. Also help if the original changeset number is mentioned. 4. Ask to have the tricky ones backported. 5. Ask for backport votes on the stuff you aren't certain on. There is al long term goal to make this a little friendlier, but it's not given a very high priority, especially together with the VCS discussions... And when you get used to the symbolic links it's not so bad.. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: Time for squid 3.0 STABLE2 ?
tis 2008-02-19 klockan 23:00 +0100 skrev Guido Serassio: > Hi, > > What about to release squid 3.0 STABLE2 ? Probably, even if I prefer to fix forwarding of large response headers first.. but it should not be a blocker for STABLE2.. > I think that there are many patches already applied to HEAD-3 that > could be applied also to SQUID_3_0. Certainly. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: squid3 future directory structure
Hi Alex, At 19:29 22/02/2008, Alex Rousskov wrote: On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:23 +0100, Guido Serassio wrote: > Changing the case of files/dir will not be a problem if we will avoid > upper/lower case collisions. This only applies to files in the same directory, right? Sure. AFAICT, filenames from different directories may still collide and even have identical case. Yes, absolutely no problems here. Regards Guido - Guido Serassio Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
Re: squid3 future directory structure
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:23 +0100, Guido Serassio wrote: > Changing the case of files/dir will not be a problem if we will avoid > upper/lower case collisions. This only applies to files in the same directory, right? AFAICT, filenames from different directories may still collide and even have identical case. Thanks, Alex.
Re: squid3 future directory structure
Hi Alex, At 00:25 20/02/2008, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > We had many problems on Windows in the past during the C++ refactoring. Do you still have those problems (we do use many capitalization styles right now)? Or is mixed case only a problem when we rename/move things and then there is no problem once things settle down? If it is the latter, then polishing capitalization (e.g., converting all dirs to lower_case) would create problems for you again! The problem was generated from file names different only in the case, like file.cc and File.cc: for the Windows file system they are the same file, but not for Linux/Unix. Currently there are no special problems, the only annoying thing is that sometime CVS doesn't like the case of a file, but deleting it and running CVS again fixes the problem Changing the case of files/dir will not be a problem if we will avoid upper/lower case collisions. Regards Guido - Guido Serassio Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
