On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 12:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > sön 2006-09-10 klockan 21:52 +1000 skrev Robert Collins: > > > I think 3.0 STABLE1 when release should be: > > * more functional than 2.6 STABLEX - there should be no regressions in > > functionality. > > I disagree. It's more important that we get 3.0.STABLE out bugfree than > feature complete. > > In my view the PRE4 release is feature complete, save for stuff which > can easily be forward ported (i.e. WCCP2, COSS).
I think what we have right now is feature complete. So I think we are both happy with this right now. > Most of the stuff not yet forward ported isn't generally needed in the > average setup, and I don't see us being hurt significantly if these > isn't in the 3.0 release. If there is community interest in these > features then I am pretty sure we will see them getting forward ported > to Squid-3 when stable. Sure. > > * within 10-15% of the speed of 2.6 STABLEX. > > If possible yes. Stability is more important at this time. But > performance is important indeed, especially for larger installations who > is also the most likely to sponsor developments.. > > > Why the speed requirement? Because a slow 3.0 will turn people off it, > > and thats hard to recover from. "Last time I tried squid-3.x it was dog > > slow, blech." > > Yes, but I don't agree it's that slow. Sure 2.6 is faster, but 3 is not > dog slow in comparison. Well, I dont know where the line should be drawn. But we should be willing to get some figure on the relative performance to make a judgement call on this. > > So heres a proposal: end of october, presuming all bugs are contained, > > we release 3.0 FC-1 - which stands for 'Feature Complete'. From now to > > then is just bugfixen etc. > > I dislike introducing yet another release tag. The PREx releases is > already supposed to be feature complete but perhaps not bug free or > performing as well as STABLE. I think we just have to bite out own mess > and start following our own release plans and stop introducing new stuff > in 3.0. > > Other than that yes, but with FC-1 being PRE5 and FC-2 being PRE6. I'm ok with this too. I mainly want the incremental releases, and for it to HAPPEN. > > We do *whatever it takes* architecturally and code wise to fix the > > release blocking bugs, and to get 3.0's speed sufficiently fast that we > > are all happy to call FC-??? STABLE-1. > > Yes. > > > That means that large changes which are aimed at performance will be > > considered ok during the FC series. > > Yes. > > If you ask me such changes is accepted even during a STABLE cycle, as > long as the change can be verified to > > a) Not require/introduce new features (must) > b) Not destabilize the code (verified within reason) > c) We all agree that the performance gain is worth the internal API > changes. I think its less ok during a STABLE cycle - increased risk of customer impact. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
