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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
