Robert Story wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is whether or not there is an incompatability between 5.0.x and
5.1.x. There almost certainly is, so an installation of 5.0.x that upgraded to
5.1.x would almost ceratinly have the same issues. So I'm on the fence here...
I see your point, but I suspect we'd do more harm than good. Why cause
unnecessary pain for those upgrading from 5.1.3.1 to 5.1.4 (when
released)? Those upgrading from 5.0.x to 5.1.4 (less people and
5.2.2/5.3 will rather be the recommended choice for them then) are more
likely to *expect* trouble and/or recompile anyway.
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
