(I'm going to try and raise these during the London meeting if I can get in with Skype or something similar.) On Thu, Feb 28, 2008, Robert Collins wrote: > Folk will scratch their own itches - thats open source for you. I know > I'd really prefer it if features being added are *primarily* added to -3 > - I'm totally supportive of backporting to -2, but would rather see it > as a backporting process rather than a forward porting process. Trouble is, "scratching their own itches" is primarily whats caused the conflict between ongoing squid-2 and squid-3 development. I'd really prefer if the majority of squid (core) developers decided on a path forward so those currently using Squid can decide whether the project is going along in a direction that suits their needs. Right now .. well, there's not much in the way of direction. > > * If that success metric is not reached, what is the contingency > > plan? > > I don't know what you really mean here. Squid isn't a corporate entity > with a monetary either-or marketing/funding style problem. Yes, but Squid is being used by lots of companies who rely on it, and -they- have a problem if Squid starts diverging from their needs. > > * How will these answers change if a substantial number of users > > willingfully choose to stay on -2 (and not just because they neglect > > to update their software)? > > Well, I'd hope that at the minimum those users would file bugs on the > things about -3 that keep them on -2, so that developers can fix > them :). Which developers? What time? The set of features required to make -3 cover 100% of -2's functionality is well known and a lot of them are in bugzilla. Somehow though its not being worked on, so people stay on -2. The new features in -3 are still tainted by the fact that its buggy and its slow. The trouble with -3 that -I- see as a (core) developer is that the set of features being worked on in -3 doesn't correlate well with the set of features in -2 that people are using, including performance. This has been a problem for a number of years. The reason I pieced together the Squid-2 "roadmap" thats in the Wiki now is because I saw a lot of companies who are or were using Squid, and some items in the roadmap are what -they- saw as important. Some of the items in the roadmap are my personal itches, but at the end of the day we have to get paid, and that roadmap was going to be how I attacked the problem of ongoing funding. This upset (understandably) the other developers working on Squid-3, and I've put a hold on it for now. Somehow though nothings happened, and I'm hoping -something- happens soon. Past history in the -3 development cycle (and Squid in general over the last few years) has shown that although we have a lot of good ideas, we just aren't implementing them, and meanwhile entire projects spring up implementing much faster HTTP proxying/caching/ outing code that we're not leaveraging in own project. Just to put it down for the record, I've had enough interest in my Squid-2 roadmap that I see it as a path forward for the next twelve months of my time, and enough financial interest in my Squid-2 roadmap that I may be able to start funding a couple of other developers. I stopped pushing it due to discussions inside squid-core, as I really would like to work on this as a team rather than splintering what constitutes "Squid", but I'm rapidly reaching the point where I'll do it if it means actual tangible progress will be made. > > * Who is using -3 in production now? How are you using it (load, > > use case, etc.) and what are your experiences? > > I use -3, have for ages. But its trivial home-site accelerating and > browsing, so entirely uninteresting at the scope of yahoo :). I tried putting -3 in trial production last week for a reverse proxy accelerator for a university project - it couldn't handle the load -2 could. Thats only ~800 requests a second on modest hardware. Adrian -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $25/pm entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
