[Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Joerg Mayer wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > I think we need some discussion around how we make such radical changes in
> > future.
> 
> When I posted patches to implement shared libs I received some negative
> feedback. I received no such feedback when I moved the dissection stuff
> into libethereal. I also stated that I would wait until after the release
> of 0.10.2 to put things into cvs. I did that. Because of the problem
> feedback received on shared libs - I decided to start with the easy
> part (famous last words).
> If I had expected much trouble, I would have gone with the idea of a
> branch, but it didn't look that problematic at the time I made that
> decision and so I took the way that seemd the simpler one: make the
> patch to head, fix some oversights and be done with it. No tracking
> and porting of patches from head branch to shared branch.

Yeah, a branch would have been better, but it seems CVS does not support 
branches too well.

In any case, things seem to have settled down now. I have to check on my 
RH9.0 machine tonight and maybe my FC2Test1 machine as well.

Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, 
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com