Yesterday Jake Brutlag wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:47:04AM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > hmpf ... I have fixed the version checks in rrd_restore to only make > > sure that the restored xml file does not have a version higher than > > the one supported by the restore functions ... > > The old code required the dump file to be version 2, but the new code > promises to > process version 1-3. Before this change is accepted, we need to test > that current > code can import a version 1 dump file. I am not sure it can. > > When I implemented version 2, I kept the code backwards compatible in > that it could > continue to process binary files of the preceding version. But I don't > recall > ensuring that restore can handle both dump formats. > > Note that incompatibility of dump format does not preclude upgrading. To > upgrade, > one can simply use the new version of the code to run dump on a version > 1 binary file. > The dump is then in the current version. Upon restore, the binary file > will be marked > with the new version.
Hi Jake, you got a point there ... the code has a check for version 2 and 3 but I have not seen anything for 1 ... so should I just bump up the minimal dump version required, or do you want to look at it more closely ? tobi -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker @ ISG.EE, ETZ J97, ETH, CH-8092 Zurich / // _ \/ _ \/ / System Manager, Time Lord, Coder, Designer, Coach /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker +41(0)1-632-5286 -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi
