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

[Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko]

It would appear that public confrontation in this manner did not stimulate 
any reasonable response.  I suggest the following:

1) ratbox says there are compatibility issues present with Hybrid (and 
vice versa).  This will inform networks such as EfNet not to use Hybrid 
since they're mostly ratbox these days.  (Note that explaining the reason 
for incompatibility is pointless... nobody really cares why, people just 
want to know what issues exist)

2) ratbox provides a function that enables support for hybrid in the 
configuration file.  (hybrid_tb_support = yes;)

3) ratbox auto-detects hybrid and performs the aforementioned operation 
automagically.

--
  .-------------------------------------.
( Biggest security gap -- an open mouth )
  `-------------------------------------'
--
Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, junk wrote:

> Aaron Sethman wrote:
>
>> 
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jack L. wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not going to argue with you at 3AM, we both changed the protocol. From 
>>> what you are saying, we could say that you deliberately broke our TBURST 
>>> with the TB, but we changed our code to be compatible with ratbox's TB. We 
>>> are both guilty of not notifying the other party of the changes. Can we 
>>> stop making accusations and work together or do we have to do this hit or 
>>> miss thing with you broke this and I broke that?
>> 
>> 
>> We didn't break your TBURST.  We implemented a completely different command 
>> to do it.  It doesn't break it, just doesn't exchange topics.
>> Breaking XLINE is something that people will notice and will cause 
>> problems.  Comparing a different implementation of the same concept with 
>> *breaking* an existing command are two different things.
>> 
>> -Aaron
>
> This childish sh** between the two teams is getting old. I wish you all would 
> take it off list. :)
>