nt: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:03 AM
To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removing old migration instructions
I disagree, we don't support many of our old versions and we don't even
provide the release on our release page.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:40
ev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removing old migration instructions
I disagree, we don't support many of our old versions and we don't even
provide the release on our release page.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:40 AM Robert Butts wrote:
om: Dave Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:03 AM
To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removing old migration instructions
I disagree, we don't support many of our old versions and we don't even
provide the release on our release page.
On Wed, Jan 9, 201
I disagree, we don't support many of our old versions and we don't even
provide the release on our release page.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:40 AM Robert Butts wrote:
> +1 on a footnote. Otherwise, it's going to be a pain for someone to dig
> through every version of the docs to upgrade an old vers
+1 on a footnote. Otherwise, it's going to be a pain for someone to dig
through every version of the docs to upgrade an old version.
Links would be even better.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:18 PM Gray, Jonathan
wrote:
> I would consider keeping a footnote somewhere that outlines any upgrade
> seque
I would consider keeping a footnote somewhere that outlines any upgrade
sequence requirements such as 1.0 -> 1.12 -> 2.0 -> 2.21 -> 3.0. Mostly just
so that if you do find yourself inheriting an antique setup that must be
maintained in place you know how many hops you should be looking for. Th
