[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number t
From: |
Timothy Brownawell |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0 |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:08:43 -0500 |
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 09:58 -0400, address@hidden wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:06:12PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am of the opinion that the next version of monotone should be 1.0 because
> > of
> > the netsync flag day.
> >
> > This would allow us, maintainers of monotone in Debian, to provide two
> > versions of monotone in parallel: monotone (the latest) and monotone0
> > (0.44),
> > or monotone1 and monotone. This would allow people to have both versions
> > installed at the same time, without a clash.
> >
> > I think this would be desirable because Debian 5.0 "Lenny" contains version
> > 0.40, runs on many servers including www.ada-france.org, and will remain in
> > service for at least another two years. Thus the transition period for the
> > netsync change cannot be shorter than that.
>
> I suppose the other option would be for monotone to detect which
> versions of netsync are available at the other end, and use whichever is
> the most recent. That way you could upgrade and still be compatible
> with those who haven't. Whether this is technically feasible (is enough
> information available in the data base to support both protocols?
All the same information is there, but the cert hashes have changed. I
suppose the old hash could be stored in the db as well...
It's now possible to have multiple keys with the same name, so incoming
old-format certs could be ambiguous. I suppose they could be
disambiguated by trying to verify the signature with each of the keys
with that name.
> Does
> the netsync protocol have a version-number field somewhere in an early
> packet?) I don't know.
The packets all have a version field, but there's nothing to allow for
negotiation. The server sends the first packet, so the clients would all
have to be upgraded first.
> It looks as if monotone is used in enough places that a flag day is a
> big event, and not just something that can be handled informally in a
> small community.
>
> I guess that's good news....
Annoying, but yes, probably good.
- [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Ludovic Brenta, 2009/08/24
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/24
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Tero Koskinen, 2009/08/24
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0,
Timothy Brownawell <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/24
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Timothy Brownawell, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Philipp Gröschler, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Timothy Brownawell, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Daniel Carosone, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Timothy Brownawell, 2009/08/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Daniel Carosone, 2009/08/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Zack Weinberg, 2009/08/25