Rob Davies wrote: > Hi Brian, > > this isn't exactly true - we have always incremented the major version > number with wire protocol changes when they are not backward compatible > - but it's erroneous to assume that there is a casual link between the > two - its just been coincidental to date. > > cheers, > > Rob
Is 5.0 going to be a requirement? If so, does that mean finally tossing backport-util-concurrent? -- Christopher G. Stach II
