From: "Dietz, Phil E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:50 AM
> No one has replied. Any opinions ?
Sorry, my own vote is #2. It retains a higher degree of compatibility with old
binaries
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:17 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] InodeEtag option
> >
> > From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:01 PM
> >
> >
> > > "Dietz, Phil E." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - the allow_options_t size increased to a long because all 8 bits
> > > > of char were in use.
> > >
> > > Ouch. I think that has killed changes to Options in the past.
> >
> > So do we
> >
> > 1. bite the bullet and increment the mmn?
> >
> > 2. add more_options as a long at the end of the structure, increment
> > the mmn, and perhaps some authors get away with ignoring the bump?
> >
> > Bill
>
