--On Monday, November 12, 2007 2:18 PM +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Howard Chu wrote: > >> Ah, ok. So, do you think we need to integrate this patch? > > Do you mean: in 2.3? It might be a good idea in case we want all > versions to be completely interoperable. Otherwise, as the code is now, > 2.4 tolerates 2.3 (and 2.2, AFAIK), while 2.2 and 2.3 do not tolerate > 2.4 (or, which is worse, tolerate but don't understand 2.4: issues could > arise when comparing CSNs generated by different versions, which only > 2.4 correctly handles by normalizing to its form). Eventually, this > could be a problem as soon as someone tries to use 2.4 as master and 2.3 > as slave.
I'm not sure how much we should support any release older than 2.3 when combined with 2.4. Particularly something as ancient as 2.1. As far as replication goes, I think given the timestamp changes, the only supported format would be a 2.3 master with 2.4 slaves. Just my 2c. ;) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
