trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What is 'UNSTABLE'?
Date Tue, 10 May 2011 19:40:33 GMT
On 05/10/2011 01:35 PM, Earle, Erik wrote:
>
> My team is in the process of vetting and rolling out ATS for the first 
> time.  I've seen the recommendation here and there on this list to use 
> the latest version (2.1.8 at this point).  My issue is that I need to 
> be able to describe why putting software on the front channel that is 
> marked as 'unstable' is a good idea to my operations team.
>
> Two questions here:
>
> 1 -- what does 'unstable' mean in this case?
>

It means two things:

1) We don't make any guarantees that it's stable, i.e. there's a little 
more risk that code gets committed that is not well tested. In all 
honesty though, I'm 100% certain that v2.1.8 is more stable than v2.0.1, 
just by looking at the number of serious fixes we've made since that 
release. That doesn't mean we haven't introduce any new bugs though (in 
fact, I'm sure we have).

2) Probably more important is that features, configurations, and APIs 
are not stable, and will change within the release.

> 2 -- Is there a road map to the next stable version (3.0, right?)
>

Yes, we'll make v2.1.9 in a couple of weeks (hopefully), and then v3.0 a 
week or two after that, depending on the results of v2.1.9. V2.1.8 is 
very close to what will be v3.0, the only two big things missing is some 
more IPv6 support, and more efficient byte-range requests. Everything 
else would be very minor changes I think (at least according to the bug 
list for v2.1.9).

-- leif


Mime
View raw message