From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Traina To: Bob Manson Cc: Rick Macdonald , gnats-devel@sourceware.cygnus.com, bug-gnats@gnu.org Subject: Re: proclamation of intent Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990823104833.A6147@red.juniper.net> References: <199908231738.KAA09737@tristam.juniper.net> X-SW-Source: 1999-q3/msg00011.html How about if you drop a branch tag for gnats 3.x in now (in case folks want to do later 3.x releases, and commit a snapshot into the head as 4.0-alpha). This will give Rick and Ken a chance to change their front-ends to work with 4.0's commands, and we'll just screw the old network protocol. On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Bob Manson wrote: > In message < Pine.GSO.4.10.9908231115550.20253-100000@sys4 >, Rick Macdonald writ > es: > >On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Bob Manson wrote: > > > >What does everybody think about numbering the next release 3.201, or > >3.300 or 4.0? > > I was shooting for 4.0 myself, since I think it's a big enough change > to merit it. Maybe "4.0-this-is-guaranteed-to-corrupt-your-PRMS-database" > would be a better name ;-) > > It's currently not network-protocol-backwards-compatible. I've > removed the myriad of "QXXX" commands and replaced them all with > "QUER queryformatname". I could put back the old ones, I suppose. (On > the other hand if I don't fix this, that means I can rip out all those > screwy LXXX commands, the field designation commands, et al.) > > In other news, I've implemented the configuration file, and the format > looks almost exactly like what we came up with. Works too, tho I > haven't removed the old field initialization stuff yet (it's in a new > source file scheduled for demolition). > > Maybe I should work on getting a preliminary release out instead of > finishing up what I originally started, namely the ability to add > fields ;-) I have yet to add the network protocol for dumping out the > field info (and the associated client options), there are still a fair > number of places that know how many fields there are, and the mapping > between internal field names and actual fields is not done (it still > essentially derefs an array, bad juju). > > If anyone really wants to play with this, I'll put it up. Check it > in? Something. I say check it into CVS and let Patty sort it out. > Other opinions? > > >I wish I had a beer for every time I've answered mail from people trying > >to build 3.2! > > I wish I had a beer for every line of crap code I've deleted. I'd be > drunk for a couple of months, easy. ;-) > Bob