Hi, On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:15:02PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > yes dropping rrd_flush from the api is not a good idea, otoh it > does not acomplish anything sensible in the code, so I propose the > following: > > have rrdc_flush for the client flushing function > and turn rrd_flush into a no-op for backward compatibility
I really hope, I do not sound too picky, but this would change the semantics of rrd_flush() which would be a backward incompatible change to the ABI as well (thus requiring a major soname version bump). Please note though, that removing the call to rrd_flush() in the holt- winter stuff is perfectly valid (as long as it does not break anything, of course ;-)). Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers