>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:51:29 -0400, Robert Story (Coders) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
DS> I think we need some input on this one.... Robert> Agreed... [still in catch-up mode] 1) I agree its needed. I even have a mail message from about 5 years ago that talked about scanning the Entries files looking for last-date-updated. Though I think that makes the best sense and is the most accurate, I agree its not worth it. 2) I never liked the 5.2.pre0 idea because we were never sure what the next version would be. However, we've now settled into a better routine for what is happening with various branches, etc. I think doing something like identifying the future release makes the most sense and is the most usefully. Additionally, it gets around the shared library problems where like right now the main line installs a lesser version than the patches branch, which is bad. As far as a vote for what to use, I think either VERSION.cvs or VERSION.pre0 makes the most sense. probably .cvs would be my vote, but I'm fairly on the fence. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
