On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:07:56 +0100, Dave Shield <
> [email protected]> said:
>
> DS> - We were talking about having some form of (optional)
> DS> automatic build report emailed to us, so that we could
> DS> get some feel for how
On 6 October 2010 15:57, wrote:
> I would like some
> information about the difference between ucd snmp 4.2 and net snmp 5.1.
Well the most important information about these two release
branches is that they are both obsolete. No development or
support work is being done on eithe
Dear Sir or Madam, I'm a french engineer for Akka Technologies and I would like some information about the difference between ucd snmp 4.2 and net snmp 5.1. Is there some advantage to work with the net snmp's version?And why? How did the snmp's agent change? What are the differences on: -the data
On 6 October 2010 14:16, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> DS> - We were talking about having some form of (optional)
> DS> automatic build report emailed to us,
> DS> Did anything ever come of this?
>
> No, not yet. And it's to late to start on it for 5.6, unfortunately.
Sure - I certainly wasn't thi
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:07:56 +0100, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> - We were talking about having some form of (optional)
DS> automatic build report emailed to us, so that we could
DS> get some feel for how widely tested things had been.
DS> Did anything ever come of this?
No, not yet. And
On 5 October 2010 23:35, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I don't think doing another rc release is worth it, even though the ipv6
> change seems semi-scary. I don't think we'll get more feedback about it
> after the fact, so I'd rather do a full release tomorrow...
> Thoughts?
I suspect that you're righ
