> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 12:04 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> > What about to release squid 3.0 STABLE2 ? >> > >> > I think that there are many patches already applied to HEAD-3 that >> > could be applied also to SQUID_3_0. >> > >> > If needed, I could try to contribute in the back port of some patch. >> > >> >> I've been thinking along those lines myself for a while. >> >> Its a question of who does it, and which changesets. Whan I last looked >> at >> it I found a number that I could not confirm whether or not they were >> actually applicable to 3.0. >> >> There is also some small task of removing the back-ported changes from >> the >> 3-HEAD list of changes-since-3.0. >> >> I have some time now, if you like I can go through and pull up a list of >> those changesets I think should go in and the original author say >> yay/nay/backport-needed. > > Please do! IMO, most of the bug fixes should go back to 3.0. New > features, including support for arbitrary request methods should not.
Agreed. The few things I was unsure about were: - Duanes adjustment of the copyright. Why he being the only one at the time who had access to the 3.0 branch did not remove it there too. - include directive. Being a very minor feature, and existing in 2.x. I'm undecide if it should be back-ported early to ease future upgrades from 2.6/2.7. - how to remove the back-ported changesets from the HEAD list. Still had no help on this one and it is a bit of info I feel I need to keep the changesets accurate. On #2, what do you think of habitually considering back-porting where possible, the features added to 3.1 that are actually forward-ports from 2.x? To keep at least the semblance that 3.0 follows 2.x in the upgrade path? Amos
