[lcdproc] FW: version 0.4/0.5?
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:44:45 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, William W. Ferrell wrote:
> --- email@example.com's mailer spewed these beefy chunks ---
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, David Glaude wrote:
> > But how do you deal with "backports" from 0.5 to 0.4 after the final 0.4
> > (0.4-post1 ?) ?
> I doubt it'll be worth the effort. If we actually pull this off
> properly, v0.5 will be a much-desired upgrade; I'd like it to *fully*
> support everything v0.4 did then add some more and still be easier to
> develop for. v0.4 will hopefully become an unsupported old version.
Sure /if/ it's released & stable. But until this point we should support
0.4 (bugfixes only ?).
And all updates/fixes should be shown in the version number.
But if you do a 0.4 final then here is no space for this (easiest
fix: label lcdproc0.5 as lcdprocNG and if it's released then assign a
version to it)
> Can you elaborate a bit on that MtxOrb bug?
See Message-Id: <Pine.GSU.4.21.0103221731100.14953-400000@inet14>
> Also (if you've already given me this, it's okay to smack me while I get
> organized again :) can you send along your sourceforge ID so I can add
> you as a developer, at least to track these todos.
Ok: 179561 (note: same name diffrent email addr)
> I'm still sorting out the protocol changes. I started a document about
> this several months ago I need to dig up -- there were some decent ideas
> in there.
Is here any documention about 0.5 available ?
> From what I recall, we decided to go with a human-readable (or at least
> human-decipherable :) protocol, in the clear (for now, adding support
> for SSL later) communication except for the initial authentication
> (shared secret unless somebody seriously feels like implementing
> public/private key for this monster :).
I think SSL is no must because you can use programs like sslwrap/stunnel.
Plain text proto is fine.
> The current protocol is totally unacceptable. The server needs to be
Yes, I agree with you :)
> able to transmit precise display capabilities to the clients, be more
> "informative" for inquisitive clients (what are you running on? What
> version are you? What options are you running with? How many displays
Some usefull error codes (like the one in FTP/SMTP/HTTP ...) and
command ids (to track which response belongs to which command) would be
> have you got?), and so on. Thus, it won't be backwards compatible at all
> with the current protocol. Clients will need to be updated to deal with
> it. Some may require rewriting. Too early to tell for now.
Ok, this should be no problem.
Andre' Breiler | Tel: +44 1737 839532
BBC Internet Services | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Mail me. Don't phone if possible. And use a Subject line.
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank message to