On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:01 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: > Dave Shield wrote:
> > So how is this selection made, and how are we planning to alert people > > to the existance of the two alternatives. > > Selection process (from > http://www.net-snmp.org/support/irc/net-snmp.log.2005-11-5.html): > > 1) new code > 2) --with-cflags=-DDISMAN_EVENT_OLD_IMPLEMENTATION Yuck!! Sorry - I *MUCH* prefer the previous approach. > or 3) specify individual implementation files, instead of a 'group header' How is that supposed to work? The Event MIB is an integrated entity - the various tables rely on the internals of each other. Or at least my code does, and I'd expect the same for Wes'. Trying to mix-n-match the old and new implementations just won't work. I trust that I've misunderstood what it being suggested here? Could you perhaps summarise the issues affecting the previous approach that led up to this change? > Like you, I've been pointing out that this needs to be documented. Not quite - I'm suggesting that this needs to be *discussed* first. I'm not very happy that such a change was made over the weekend, with absolutely no discussion on the coders list, or even a mention after the fact. My recent appearances on IRC should *not* be taken as license to alter the project management policy. IRC is a forum for *preliminary* discussions - not for decision making. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
