Hi Chris,
Yes, that's intended for a couple of reasons: 1) don't expect to release any
more table versions: you see that already happening with recently introduced
primitives; idea is to stick to a table version (or style nowadays) and then
customize it from there, adding (or removing) fields to the base schema. 2)
combinations of table type/version are internally mapped to a number greater
than 8, ie. table type BGP, table version 1.
No problem with the blog entry. I believe you can change the "Luckily he
agreed" to simply "He agreed" - i'm not such of an un-cooperative beast,
am i?
Cheers,
Paolo
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:26:43PM +0200, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Paolo Lucente wrote:
>
>> To say this work (as agreed in the shape of sql table version 8) has
>> been just committed to the CVS. Please give it a try and let me know if
>> it seems to work to your eyes.
>
> Thanks for this. I haven't compiled it yet, but I noticed this line:
>
> if ((!strcmp(config.type, "mysql") || !strcmp(config.type,
> "sqlite3")) && config.sql_table_version != 8) {
>
> Doesn't this mean that it will revert to the old schema when we release a
> schema version 9? Is that what you wanted? It seems surprising to me. I
> would have expected "config.sql_table_version < 8" instead.
>
> By the way I've written this story up in a blog post, I hope that's OK,
> but please let me know if you want me to edit it:
> http://blog.aptivate.org/2010/10/06/consistency-portability-and-backwards-compatibility/
>
> Cheers, Chris.
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
