FW: ircd-hybrid release notification - ircd-hybrid-7.1.1

[Lee H]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 01:26:00AM -0800, Jack L. wrote:
> > Is there a reason you decided to deliberately break compatibility with
> > ircd-ratbox for remote XLINE?  I find it somewhat confusing, especially
> > when I wrote a new syntax for these to go over ENCAP to avoid problems
> > with munging the old protocol.
> > 
> > So now any temporary xlines from hyb7.1 -> ratbox will get converted to
> > permanent, and because you ignored the ENCAP method which avoids this
> > problem, temporary xlines from ratbox -> hyb7.1 are lost.
> 
> Nobody decided to deliberately break compatibility or anything with ircd-ratbox. If you would have emailed us about your changes it would have been compatible. We can't read minds.

The same way you emailed about yours?

My changes were backward compatible, yours were not.  I didnt break
compatibility with anything.  You altered an existing protocol, changing
the meaning of a parameter.  I left the existing protocol alone, instead
adding a new protocol *in addition* to the existing one to deal with 
temp xlines.

If anything, it shouldve been you emailing me.  The point is you didnt
even bother (or care) to look at how this has been implemented elsewhere,
or whether the changes you were making to an existing protocol would
break ratbox, conveniently forgetting you got the remote xline protocol
from ratbox in the first place.

> > If you want me to keep compatibility with hybrid, you have to play the
> > same game and not deliberately break compatibility with ratbox.  Its
> > your call.
> >
> 
> If you don't want things to break compatibility with ratbox, you should try emailing the list about your changes.

So, if I dont want hybrid to alter an existing protocol in such a way
that breaks compatibility, I should email them, even though its them
doing the changes to the protocol and I dont know about it until its
already done?

On what planet does that make sense?

-- 
Lee H