Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap

On 05/03/2008, at 1:39 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:

>> Well,
>>
>> I am interested in speed, features and ICAP.
>> So I like -2 and -3 to merge.
>>
>> It seems to me that for the sake of being polite with each other
>> we do not want to call the -2 / -3 issue a fork, but effectively
>> it really is a fork.
>>
>> So here is my question back to the main maintainers:
>> do you want to undo the fork and merge ?
>> Note this: for a merge there are 2 ways:
>> 1) port functionality from -3 to -2
>> 2) port functionality from -2 to -3
>
> Don't forget the .5) tasks:
> 1.5) port all changes made to -3 since starting the base port to -2.
> 2.5) port all changes made to -2 since starting the base port to -3.
>
> (1) would require a full re-code of -2 into C++ (repeating 6+ years
> of 3.x
> development under a new name) in order to encompass the features of -3
> that cannot be back-ported.

Well, that's a bit of a straw-man, isn't it? AIUI 3 *is* already 2 re-
coded into C++. Never mind the question of why that's necessary;
indeed, I think a lot of people's discomfort is centred on the fact
that large parts of 3 have been rewritten and not battle-tested in
wide deployment.

I think you'd get that deployment if there were significant reasons
for users to migrate; conversion to C++ is motivation for the
developers, not the users, unless it's accompanied by user-visible
improvements in performance, stability, or functionality. Again, while
ESI and ICAP are cool and useful, IMO they don't motivate the majority
of your users.

> (2) requires info from you the users, about what features you need
> ported,
> and some help on porting those over to -3.

full vary/etag support
collapsed_forwarding
stale-if-error
stale-while-revalidate
external_refresh_check
pinned peer connections
external logfile daemon
stablility
performance
wide adoption (yes, this is a chicken-and-egg problem)

> Most of the developers are already working on this. We do want to
> close
> the divide. We also have not yet had a sponsor willing to pay
> specifically
> for any feature porting. So we are stuck with doing it whenever time
> is
> available.

Again, parity with -2 isn't enough; why would someone pay for
something they can already get in -2 if it meets their needs?

You need to find a killer app for -3 that has broader appeal than just
ICAP and ESI.

While I'm in a mood for ruffling feathers (*grin*), it might also help
to have the "core" discussions in public; AIUI there's a separate
mailing list for this, and while having those discussions hidden away
shelters you guys to some degree -- and I appreciate your motivation
for doing so -- it also removes the opportunity for feedback by
interested non-core folks. You might find that some more transparency
improves the process and vitality of the project.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com