--On Monday, November 12, 2007 2:18 PM +0000 ando@sys-net.it 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