Re: [MERGE] Use 1 second main loop timeout by default
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 16:16 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 22:45 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 00:33 +, Bundle Buggy wrote: Bundle Buggy has detected this merge request. For details, see: http://squid-cache.org/bundlebuggy//request/%3C1205973075.7088.7.camel%40HenrikLaptop%3E Can we login to vote online? What password should we use? I followed the instructions and emailed Robert about bb account a few days ago, but did not see a response... Sorry, juggling a few things at work. I will do the accounts soon I promise; long weekend is coming up for Easter. Also, I've looked at changing BB to allow anonymous votes and thats not trivial, so instead I propose to simply say 'anyone can vote' and quickly add accounts when someone new starts voting. I've seen this work well in practice. Please also add wiki instructions on how such accounts should be added. Thank you, Alex.
Including build tag in daily snapshots
Hello, From http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2275: User: squid-3.0.STABLE2 compile error. Troubleshooter: Where did you get this 3.0.STABLE2 tree? User: squid-3.0.STABLE2-20080319.tar.gz Troubleshooter: 3.0.STABLE2 does not have this bug, only some snapshots do Can the snapshot making scripts be altered to include the snapshot date or revision number in the Squid version tag? This might create an occasional conflict if a user tries to patch autotools-related files, but it would save us from trying to troubleshoot the bug in the wrong version. Thank you, Alex.
download pages review
Hello, Should we remove Obsolete releases from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/ which looks scary enough without them? Should we remove Not available yet groups from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/HEAD/ to avoid confusion that Squid3 has no stable releases or that 3.HEAD will eventually have them? Should we remove the talk about DEVEL, PRE, and STABLE from the first paragraph at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ because that page does not really use those labels. The paragraphs at the bottom are probably enough. The usability of those labels is a separate topic; let's not discuss it now. Should we remove date columns from the Development Versions table at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ since they are misleading, wrong, and mostly useless, especially for .HEAD snapshots. What is the purpose of the First PRE Release Date columns at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ ? From usability perspective, we are overloading the user with terms and yet not using most of them or not using them correctly: x.y, HEAD, DEVEL, PRE, STABLE, no label, daily snapshot and their combinations, with start, first, latest, and planned dates on top of that! Thank you, Alex.
Re: Bundlebuggy accounts
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 07:59 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: Please also add wiki instructions on how such accounts should be added. It's pretty easy, but should probably wait until Bundlebuggy is properly installed. Currently in roberts home.. And if I get time I hope to look into making a registration procedure (it's not hard, but Python is not my first choice of language..). Procedures requiring prompt manual action tends to not work out to well for us.. (even things such as moderation queues often takes a week before processed) Regards Henrik
Re: download pages review
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 09:20 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: Hello, Should we remove Obsolete releases from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/ which looks scary enough without them? Should say Older, not Obsolete.. It's only PRE releases, which by definiton is obsolete when the STABLE is out. I think these got the Obsolete label while the new round of Squid-3.0 was in PRE state, to set them apart from the newer PRE releases as there is a very significant difference between the two.. but such distinction is no longer relevant, and not even kept on that page. To make things clearer we could move all older release to a separate page Archived older Squid-3.0 releases. This removes any confusion there may be about what releases are current and what are obsolete.. I propose that the same headings used for 2.6 is used for 3.0 as well. - Current STABLE release, suitable for production use - Daily auto-generated release. This is the most recent code committed to the SQUID_3_0 branch. - Older STABLE Releases - Older Release Candidates - PRE release history Should we remove Not available yet groups from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/HEAD/ to avoid confusion that Squid3 has no stable releases or that 3.HEAD will eventually have them? Squid-2 HEAD says None planned. This is a development tree. which is more to the point I think. Should we remove the talk about DEVEL, PRE, and STABLE from the first paragraph at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ because that page does not really use those labels. The paragraphs at the bottom are probably enough. The usability of those labels is a separate topic; let's not discuss it now. Yes. Should we remove date columns from the Development Versions table at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ since they are misleading, wrong, and mostly useless, especially for .HEAD snapshots. Historically it's been the date the last STABLE tree branched from HEAD, opening up the tree for commits which will only be seen in the next STABLE generation after that. It's a measure on how long development for the release has been in progress, and a valuable measure to keep I think. What is the purpose of the First PRE Release Date columns at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ ? Good question. It's not really relevant as PRE versions is not for production, only testing and review to get used to the upcoming features. Regards Henrik
intro/subscription request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, I'd like to quietly join squid-dev. I'm a a Squid user/administrator, with some experience in Squid 2.x and 3.x source. I've run into things I'd like to discuss/fix, and this seems to be the place to be... Thanks, Matt - -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH4uAAJiSUUSaRdSURCHvfAJ49YIcbhGd7pYWCFMW6DbGC4wrqwwCfZQGI JIP5Ofh7zCKA827xbw9gljo= =AzRZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Including build tag in daily snapshots
Alex Rousskov wrote: Hello, From http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2275: User: squid-3.0.STABLE2 compile error. Troubleshooter: Where did you get this 3.0.STABLE2 tree? User: squid-3.0.STABLE2-20080319.tar.gz Troubleshooter: 3.0.STABLE2 does not have this bug, only some snapshots do Can the snapshot making scripts be altered to include the snapshot date or revision number in the Squid version tag? This might create an occasional conflict if a user tries to patch autotools-related files, but it would save us from trying to troubleshoot the bug in the wrong version. Thank you, Alex. I've been thinking it would be a good idea to add the patch-cleaning script to the source for people to use for submission. There are a few minor issues to work out still but if you all agree I'll drop it in. There would probably have to be two versions or an internal check: - [test,] clean and submit (for general developers) - [test,] clean and commit (for committers) With [test,] being an optional(compulsory?) build test for minor issues as discussed earlier for the testbed level-1. Amos -- Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+ There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
Re: download pages review
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 09:20 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: Hello, Should we remove Obsolete releases from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/ which looks scary enough without them? Should say Older, not Obsolete.. It's only PRE releases, which by definiton is obsolete when the STABLE is out. I think these got the Obsolete label while the new round of Squid-3.0 was in PRE state, to set them apart from the newer PRE releases as there is a very significant difference between the two.. but such distinction is no longer relevant, and not even kept on that page. They were removed initially when STABLE1 came out but I added them back after some squid-user comments abut the huge gap between initial and current being the scary thing. With them present those admin can at least get some re-assurance from seeing the real development/change period was only 2.5 years (PRE4+), not the 6 years it seems at first glance. 2-3 years is not unreasonable for a re-code of major software. To make things clearer we could move all older release to a separate page Archived older Squid-3.0 releases. This removes any confusion there may be about what releases are current and what are obsolete.. I propose that the same headings used for 2.6 is used for 3.0 as well. - Current STABLE release, suitable for production use - Daily auto-generated release. This is the most recent code committed to the SQUID_3_0 branch. - Older STABLE Releases - Older Release Candidates - PRE release history Agreed and changed. While we are at it what about the text and links following the releases table. * The Pending bugs link might be useful for 2.x. * The fixed bugs list is getting so long is it still useful for the stable releases? changesets may show a better list of fixed major bugs. Should we remove Not available yet groups from http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/HEAD/ to avoid confusion that Squid3 has no stable releases or that 3.HEAD will eventually have them? Squid-2 HEAD says None planned. This is a development tree. which is more to the point I think. Agreed. Fixed that. What about adding a link to the latest production releases page? Also: v3/HEAD/make.sh errors with 'ls *.diff' no sch files. and there are no release notes made for head, so linking to them is useless. I've removed the old links to 3.0.RC1 as being even worse than nothing. 2.6 appears to have properly made release notes for 2.8.DEVEL0. I think 3-HEAD should have them for 3.1.DEVEL0 at the least. Should we remove the talk about DEVEL, PRE, and STABLE from the first paragraph at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ because that page does not really use those labels. The paragraphs at the bottom are probably enough. The usability of those labels is a separate topic; let's not discuss it now. Yes. Yes remove or yes not discuss? It would mean removing the mention of First PRE release from the table. Which is probably a good idea to remove from that particular page IMHO. Should we remove date columns from the Development Versions table at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ since they are misleading, wrong, and mostly useless, especially for .HEAD snapshots. Historically it's been the date the last STABLE tree branched from HEAD, opening up the tree for commits which will only be seen in the next STABLE generation after that. It's a measure on how long development for the release has been in progress, and a valuable measure to keep I think. I'd remove the 'planned release date' though in favour of a link to the RoadMap. What is the purpose of the First PRE Release Date columns at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/ ? Good question. It's not really relevant as PRE versions is not for production, only testing and review to get used to the upcoming features. Drop 'em! IMHO. The per-version page should be the only place that info is needed and of any use. Amos -- Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+ There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
Re: intro/subscription request
Matt Benjamin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, I'd like to quietly join squid-dev. I'm a a Squid user/administrator, with some experience in Squid 2.x and 3.x source. I've run into things I'd like to discuss/fix, and this seems to be the place to be... Welcome aboard Matt. What issues are you wanting to discuss? Amos -- Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+ There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
Re: [Bug 2206] no Proxy-Authenticate header in 407 responses
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 20:07 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2206 Amos Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.0 |3.1 Why not fix it in 3.0.3? Thanks, Alex.
Re: [Bug 2206] no Proxy-Authenticate header in 407 responses
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 22:52 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 20:07 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2206 Amos Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.0 |3.1 Why not fix it in 3.0.3? Ah, I see. It is already fixed there and the above is to remind us to port it up to 3.1. Thanks, Alex.
