Sorry if I picked the wrong list there confusing Johan, but IMHO it *is* a
users@ question. It is not about *writing* the API or code, it is about
*using* the API/binaries, be it a future API or not.
I agree that it's sort of in-between. What drove me to redirect to users@ is
that others that read users@ might be asking themselves the same question.
We posted both now anyways, probably for the best ;)
About SHA1 on the 1.6 server: the point really is that we need to
communicate those SHA1 checksums to the client and back. Those API
mechanisms will be updated by 1.7 (or will they?). (I'm not 100% certain but
that's how I understood the conversations so far. Please correct me if I'm
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 at 13:34 +0100:
>> Johan, I think this mail should have been sent to users@ instead. I am
>> replying there instead.
> It don't find it off-topic on dev@, though, given that it asks about
> unreleased features. Not all devs read users@.
Received on 2010-02-22 18:38:06 CET