jw schultz wrote: > I'm in the midst of coding a patch set for consideration > that will bump the protocol version and have a couple of > observations. > > The current minimum backwards-compatible protocol is 15 > but we have code that checks for protocol versions as old as > 12. If someone else doesn't beat me to it i'm considering > cleaning out the pre-15 compatibility code. A backwards > compatibility patch could be created for those that want to > keep it. > > The current protocol version is 26. Once i increment it > that will be 27 (duh!) Currently the maximum compatible remote > protocol is 30. This should be bumped up to 35 or 40. > > It has been a long time since protocol 15. I'm not > suggesting changing the minimum yet, but i am thinking it > might be a good idea to add a OLD_PROTOCOL_VERSION and if > the remote_version <= OLD_PROTOCOL_VERSION kick out a > warning. I was thinking version 19 for now since 20 was > introduced about four years ago. A few revs (a year or so) > from now we could then advance the MIN to the OLD and bump > up the OLD and clean out some more cruft.
Four years of non-deprecated backwards compatibility sounds extremely generous. As a comparison point, unison offers no backward compatibility at all! Max. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html