Brian Beesley wrote:
> BTW I don't even remember an announcement that v25 was released
Do you understand that the current PrimeNet v4 => v5 migration is the result of
an emergency situation? And that the present encouragement to go to Prime95
v25 without a prior release announcement is also a consequence of that
emergency, only because PrimeNet v5 and Prime95 v25 were intended and designed
to work together?
It was never intended that a changeover be done this way.
There was a hard disk failure on the v4 server, it was going to take a long
time to get a replacement for the relatively-antique disk, and it was decided
by those in charge that v5 and v25 were well-enough tested to be thrown in as
emergency replacements.
> The server software should be transparent to users,
... ideally ...
> and I think there is an obligation to retain backwards compatibility
> when the end users are volunteers.
Then you'll be happy to know that there _will be_ backwards compatibility as
soon as the v4->v5 bridge and API are completed. v24 Prime95 will work just
fine then.
If the failing disk could have been persuaded to hang on a while longer while
v5/v25 development and testing were completed, you'd have seen backward
compatibility right from the v5 start. But that didn't happen.
> Even if it is in our long term
... and short term ...
> interest to migrate to a new version, forcing people
> to do so at a time which may not be convenient to them is
> not, IMHO, a sensible way to proceed.
That's true.
Brian, go give that failed disk a good talking-to about its need to have been
more sensible and empathetic with the user community's convenience instead of
being consumed by only its own selfish state!
Maybe you'd prefer the alternative: leaving the GIMPS server down for an
extended period of time with no replacement?
Richard B. Woods
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
