On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:41:47 -0800 "Buhrmaster, Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 I have faith in at least our resident rpm and deb packagers to give some notice. Also, downstream packagers can automate changing BosConfig to reflect a DAFS configuration, if they decide that the upgrade path should move to DAFS transparently. People that compile and install the binaries themselves ideally are a little more aware of what's going on (otherwise, why would they upgrade?). And you don't need to know about the even/odd numbering scheme, just that the 4 in 1.4 hasn't changed in a while. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
