Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>>>> 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.
ok, I am convinced...option 2) going once? -G ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
