On Sun, Jun 25, 2006, Doug Dixon wrote: > We are at the point where we need to stop being general, and start > being very specific, about HOW Squid-3 is "not stable". What are the > measures of stability? How do we prove to each other that Squid-3 is > stable or unstable?
IMHO we lost out because the scope of squid-3 became less and less "abstract out the stuff that we're doing in Squid-2.5 that can be represented with a simple move to C++ classes" and started on the path of rewriting large chunks of code. Its good that this has stopped. :) > I expect the answer to be in two parts: > > 1. an empirical definition of "stable". I.e. a way of testing that > Squid-3 is *actually* stable (maybe running in production somewhere, > or passing other tests that are currently failed) > 2. a set of bugs in Bugzilla which, when fixed, should take us up to > this standard 3. Don't change anything unless its directly related to making something stable; no matter how simple the change is. > My feeling is that we are close enough that our next PRE can take us > within reach of RC1. At which point I shall fly to Stockholm, remove > my trousers and dance around Sergels Torg. I agree. Squid-3 is much more stable then it was a few months ago. Lets all learn from this for the next major squid rework. :) Adrian
