>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:47:33 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
G> I think I still vote 4) ... one of the very reasons being that some G> people don't know the errata exists...and I don't think anyone we G> care about will think we are idiots for quoting/publishing the the G> most accurate updated text rather than something older. G> others? G> let's decide somehow before I forget I was going to do this :) I'm on the fence. Part of me wants to exactly mirror what the IETF does, and part sees the niceness of the patched files. However, keeping track of what is patched and what isn't when new errata are found for a previously patched RFC is also more painful. If it were me, I'd do the lazy option and include the errata as a separate file. But if you want to do the work, I'd be fine with that too. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
