On 16 May 2013 11:44, Thomas Thrainer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bernardo Dal Seno <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On 16 May 2013 10:54, Thomas Thrainer <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Based on the discussion I think this patch series is definitely not the >> > right place for such a change. >> >> Agreed. >> >> > I guess first we should change the way we handle version numbers during >> > development, and then we should also gather realistic requirements for >> > cfgupgrade, which could then lead to a re-write. >> >> Hopefully we won't need to change that much. >> >> > In the meantime, I'll rewrite this patch to only add/remove the >> > additional >> > flag in cfgupgrade. IIRC the problem with upgrades in masterd were, that >> > confd has to be able to read the config as well... >> >> But first we need a proper cfgupgrade for 2.9, i.e., one that >> dowgrades to 2.8 instead of 2.7. I have the patch ready and I can send >> it, if you need it, but I was waiting for 2.8 to be packaged so we had >> the proper version numbers in place and avoid confusion. But maybe you >> want to push this series after the cmdlib split anyway. Please let me >> know which you prefer. > > > As you are much deeper into this topic, and my changes are really minor (see > new patch), I'll leave that to you :). > I'd personally prefer to push this series after the cmdlib split, if that > goes through soon-ish.
Ok, so let's do the split, and then we'll see. Bernardo
