Do we support 2.2.1 or not ?

Russ Allbery rra at
Thu Oct 7 09:15:23 UTC 1999

Hans Lambermont <Hans.Lambermont at> writes:

> Though, when i look at INN from a distance nowadays, i see a very
> enthusiastic group developing it, but at the cost of stability. And i
> think the focus shifted too far to development. I deploy INN for about 5
> years now for a major worldwide company's intranet, and stability is my
> major concern. Perhaps it is the combination of my platform (BSDI) and
> INN, i don't know, but i find the stability lowering over the years. I
> think that is sad.

Well, some of my opinion is probably revealed by the fact that my reader
machine is running 1.7.2-insync-1.1d, which was a remarkably stable
version of INN and would last quite a while.

I think the main reason why stability went down for a while is that the
introduction of the storage API and the conversion of INN to autoconf were
both really major structural changes to the package, and it takes a while
to finish those kinds of changes.  We've just now, in the current
development version, gotten all the way to a pure storage API system, and
we still haven't completely gotten rid of subst.  There have also been
several drastic overhauls of the overview code, and that's caused some

I think INN 2.3 is shaping up to be another version that will be quite
stable for a while, and we're almost there in terms of finishing up the
structural changes that INN needed.

Russ Allbery (rra at         <URL:>

More information about the inn-workers mailing list