[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > <snip> The proposed fields you mentioned look good to me. One other quick thought, is perhaps the "codebase" fields should have a flag or other standard way of representing the case of something being mostly of a "codebase" but with a minor patch or two.
> Another question related to this is whether we should re-do the > metaserver connection method all together - in shorter term, the servers > could use both new and old methods to report data, but then at some > point, they only use new method. There were discussions in the past > about this - I bring it up now, because if we add all these new fields, > it may make it hard to keep things compatible. And another thought, is if it would be worthwhile for a redone metaserver connection method to actually be a distributed metaserver as was once thought about a long while back. I'm not sure that would be good, but if the connection method were to be redone, it would be worth thinking about those sorts of things. Alex _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
