You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2011/05/31 22:13:17 UTC
[DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Hi all,
I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
can gather details on any pressing bugs).
My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and more
solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those fixed
could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
least).
Please discuss.
-- Leif
Antw: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Sascha Klose <Sa...@cewecolor.de>.
Yes, do it.
Sascha
>>> Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> 31.05.2011 22:13 >>>
Hi all,
I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
can gather details on any pressing bugs).
My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and
more
solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those
fixed
could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
least).
Please discuss.
-- Leif
___________________________________________________________________
OHG mit Sitz in Oldenburg; Registergericht Oldenburg HR A 1548;
persönlich haftende geschäftsführende Gesellschafterin: Neumüller CeWe
Color Stiftung, Oldenburg
Vorstand: Dr. Rolf Hollander, Vorsitzender;
Harald H. Pirwitz, Felix Thalmann, Frank Zweigle, Dr. Michael Fries;
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Reiner Fageth, Thomas Grunau,
Andreas F.L. Heydemann, Dr. Olaf Holzkämper
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin: CeWe Color Holding AG, Oldenburg,
Registergericht Oldenburg HR B 2956
Vorstand: Dr. Rolf Hollander, Vorsitzender;
Andreas F.L. Heydemann, Dr. Reiner Fageth, Dr. Olaf Holzkämper
Aufsichtsrat: Hubert Rothärmel, Vorsitzender
RE: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Kingsley Foreman <ki...@internode.com.au>.
I say do it,
The unstable version of the software is far more stable then most other software arround today, expecially considering what it does, as long as the API is now set (and won't really change), I dont see any reason not to release a stable considering it a lot better then the current stable.
Kingsley
________________________________________
From: Leif Hedstrom [zwoop@apache.org]
Sent: 01 June 2011 05:43
To: dev@trafficserver.apache.org; 'users@trafficserver.apache.org'
Subject: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Hi all,
I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
can gather details on any pressing bugs).
My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and more
solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those fixed
could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
least).
Please discuss.
-- Leif
Antw: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Sascha Klose <Sa...@cewecolor.de>.
Yes, do it.
Sascha
>>> Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> 31.05.2011 22:13 >>>
Hi all,
I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
can gather details on any pressing bugs).
My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and
more
solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those
fixed
could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
least).
Please discuss.
-- Leif
___________________________________________________________________
OHG mit Sitz in Oldenburg; Registergericht Oldenburg HR A 1548;
persönlich haftende geschäftsführende Gesellschafterin: Neumüller CeWe
Color Stiftung, Oldenburg
Vorstand: Dr. Rolf Hollander, Vorsitzender;
Harald H. Pirwitz, Felix Thalmann, Frank Zweigle, Dr. Michael Fries;
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Reiner Fageth, Thomas Grunau,
Andreas F.L. Heydemann, Dr. Olaf Holzkämper
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin: CeWe Color Holding AG, Oldenburg,
Registergericht Oldenburg HR B 2956
Vorstand: Dr. Rolf Hollander, Vorsitzender;
Andreas F.L. Heydemann, Dr. Reiner Fageth, Dr. Olaf Holzkämper
Aufsichtsrat: Hubert Rothärmel, Vorsitzender
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
> So please, if v2.1 really is (almost) as stable as v2.0 -- get a new
> stable release out ASAP, so that we can start seriously considering
> it.
I dare claim 2.1.9 is without a doubt much more stable than the 2.0
release. The reason we call it -unstable is that the *API* has not
been stabilised. With 3.0.x we're freezing the API on that branch.
"Unstable" development continues in trunk.
In fact, we have already branched off 3.0.x in preparation for the
release, so we'll not disturb continuous development.
This is our stable, soon to be released branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/traffic/branches/3.0.x/
Though, if you're not allowed to roll something marked
unstable, I'm afraid people will shout at you even more
if you suggest to use a subversion checkout :)
My 2c on that subject:
http://blag.esotericsystems.at/2010/08/svnpubsub/
> -jf
>
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
> So please, if v2.1 really is (almost) as stable as v2.0 -- get a new
> stable release out ASAP, so that we can start seriously considering
> it.
I dare claim 2.1.9 is without a doubt much more stable than the 2.0
release. The reason we call it -unstable is that the *API* has not
been stabilised. With 3.0.x we're freezing the API on that branch.
"Unstable" development continues in trunk.
In fact, we have already branched off 3.0.x in preparation for the
release, so we'll not disturb continuous development.
This is our stable, soon to be released branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/traffic/branches/3.0.x/
Though, if you're not allowed to roll something marked
unstable, I'm afraid people will shout at you even more
if you suggest to use a subversion checkout :)
My 2c on that subject:
http://blag.esotericsystems.at/2010/08/svnpubsub/
> -jf
>
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
I've been lurking since ATS was announced, and am still waiting for a
proper stable release. I work for an ISP, and would like to use ATS
for various proxies and caches, but can't run an "unstable" release
and I can't set up a new platform without IPv6 support. Therefore
we're still rolling out squid and varnish proxies/caches where ATS
might have been a better choice.
So please, if v2.1 really is (almost) as stable as v2.0 -- get a new
stable release out ASAP, so that we can start seriously considering it.
-jf
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by "ming.zym@gmail.com" <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for release it.
btw, I am going to put v2.1.9 in production and have spread out that
v3.0 will be release in 2weeks, hopes not make any trouble
:D
在 2011-05-31二的 14:13 -0600，Leif Hedstrom写道：
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
> ~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
> input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
>
>
> 1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
> 2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
> 3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
> now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
> can gather details on any pressing bugs).
>
>
> My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and more
> solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
> etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
> for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
> really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those fixed
> could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
> least).
>
> Please discuss.
>
> -- Leif
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by "ming.zym@gmail.com" <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for release it.
btw, I am going to put v2.1.9 in production and have spread out that
v3.0 will be release in 2weeks, hopes not make any trouble
:D
在 2011-05-31二的 14:13 -0600，Leif Hedstrom写道：
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion on the viability of a 3.0.0 release in
> ~1-2 weeks. I know we have unresolved issues, but I'd like to get the
> input here from our users and devs. A few items to discsuss on
>
>
> 1. Is the 3.0.x branch good enough for a first v3.0.0 release?
> 2. If not, should we make another v2.1.10 release first?
> 3. People with unresolved bugs, would you be ok with a v3.0.0 release
> now, and hopefully a v3.0.1 release 4-6 weeks after that (assuming we
> can gather details on any pressing bugs).
>
>
> My hope is that we'd get more user input from a v3.0.0 release, and more
> solid bug reports that we can act on (stack traces, reproducible cases
> etc.). Looking through the bug list, there's not a whole lot to work on
> for some of the bugs that looks serious (e.g. HostDB hanging), and I'm
> really worried that postponing 3.0.0 to get some (or all) of those fixed
> could take a considerable time (probably push us out another month at
> least).
>
> Please discuss.
>
> -- Leif
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] v3.0.0
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
I've been lurking since ATS was announced, and am still waiting for a
proper stable release. I work for an ISP, and would like to use ATS
for various proxies and caches, but can't run an "unstable" release
and I can't set up a new platform without IPv6 support. Therefore
we're still rolling out squid and varnish proxies/caches where ATS
might have been a better choice.
So please, if v2.1 really is (almost) as stable as v2.0 -- get a new
stable release out ASAP, so that we can start seriously considering it.
-jf
Re: ICP bug scheduled to be fixed?
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 05/31/2011 03:19 PM, Walsh, Peter wrote:
> Hello, I see that ICP is currently broken,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-32, has there been any discussion
> around getting it fixed in an upcoming release?
I don't know of anyone working on it, but we'd certainly like for it to
get fixed. In most cases though, our clustering feature is much better
than ICP, the main reason I see to use ICP would be if you want to
interop with existing ICP infrastructure or "tools".
-- Leif
P.s
Please subscribe to the dev@ list, otherwise your replies will
always have to get moderated :).
ICP bug scheduled to be fixed?
Posted by "Walsh, Peter" <Pe...@disney.com>.
Hello, I see that ICP is currently broken,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-32, has there been any discussion
around getting it fixed in an upcoming release?
Thanks,
Pete