Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:20:24 -0800
Ben Escoto wrote:
> A few minor bugfixes have been accumulating. I decided to switch to
> the semi-standard numbering system where x.2n.x is the more stable
> branch, and x.2x+1.x is development. So the idea is 0.6.0 is supposed
> to be relatively stable, and I won't add any new features to 0.6.x.
Just out of idle curriosity do you have a policy wrt protocol changes
and what versions will talk to what? I haven't read the page lately
I'm just wondering if maybe that would be a good thing to document. I
know rsync tends to maintain a certain amount of backwards
compatibility (where certain == some undefined amount evidently - I'm
having ugly problems with 2.3.x talking to 2.5.x) but I seem to recall
a more stringent version homogeny in rdiff-backup being mentioned a
few messages back.
And in other random thoughts that would most certainly break backwards
compatibilty, have you considered TAI format for datestamps? They
would solve some of the special character issues across platforms (not
that I advocate writing code with Windows in mind, quite the opposite
actually, I'm a total Unix snob). http://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html
for more information and resources; not sure if there's a python
library for it. I dunno, maybe make it a switch or something -
probalby just useless bloat but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/
"You came all this way, without saying squat, and now you're trying
to tell me a '56 Chevy can beat a '47 Buick in a dead quarter mile?
I liked you better when you weren't saying squat kid." -Buddy