On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 11:47 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > Yes, then you left it by introducing something which exposed the bugs. > > > > The problems this thread is discussing were known before AsyncCalls. > > But they weren't exhibiting as -bugs-.
They were: assertion in bug2309 (and many other problems I personally worked on) were "discovered" in Squid3 way before AsyncCalls (v3.0 and earlier). > > > Its great that we now know about the bugs - but now you've got a codebase > > > that you're trying to stabilise > > > > This thread is not about stabilizing client-side code. It is about > > changing its key classes and the relationships among them (for many > > reasons). This will certainly destabilize the code short-term. If it > > would not, I would not need to ask others opinion whether we should wait > > with that work! > > I thought the focus on 3.1 - and I'd check, but the Wiki history for the > Roadmap stuff I put in early in the 3.1 roadmap cycle - was to focus on > stability and performance. ... > _I_ helped start building the 3.1 roadmap, if you remember. _I_ helped > draft the notion that 3.1 should be about performance and stability > fixes. This thread is (was) dedicated to the discussion whether _adjusting_ v3.1 roadmap to add client-side cleanup is a good idea. Since we have more than one person working on the project, we should try to coordinate significant changes. If you think client-side cleanup is a bad idea for v3.1, just post your arguments -- no reason to talk about AsyncCalls or other unrelated matters (which can be discussed in other threads, of course). As for v3.1 original focus that "you put in early", I do not even want to argue about that, and I am happy to assume that your original v3.1 "roadmap" was exactly what we should have done. What matters though, is the _current_ Squid3 roadmap, which we are trying to base on specific commitments of specific folks. It is far from perfect, but I think it is improving and reflects the current reality reasonably well. > If you want people to adopt Squid-3 then you should try and bring > another stable release out with IPv6 (once all of -those- issues are > fixed) and without too much quirkiness, and soon. We already have a Squid3 release that is reasonably stable and improving. I am not sure why we need to rush v3.1 out when the planned features have not been completed yet. (And did not you claim that IPv6 as a Squid feature is not really important? This thread is not about IPv6 though.) Alex.
