> Right, but if it is part of the initial 1.6 release, I think people
> will quite a bit more cautious then just replacing binaries anyway
> since it is a major version change then then a .x update.
Not all the people running openAFS will be as knowledgably
(even as to the numbering system of a 1.<even>) as the people
on this list.
Many (linux) packaging systems will just replace older versions
without a discussion with the installer about what else they
need to change (it is actually a pet peeve of mine that there
is nothing equivalent to the SMP/E "HOLD(DOC)" capability(*) in
most packaging systems).
So, I agree we need extensive release notes (And while
it is client, not server, I think Jeff has demonstrated
excellent release notes for the Windows clients, so we
have a proof by example that it can be done.)
Gary
(*) Yes, that dates me. But SMP/E had a lot of good features
(and some really annoying ones too).
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
