On Monday 10 September 2007 01:47, James Harper wrote: > > At this time, I do not have a patch for 2.0.x versions, and unless > > there > > > is some really compelling reason to create one, I would prefer not -- > > it > > > would not be a huge effort to back port the patch, but it would > > require > > > rather extensive testing. > > The only issue I can see with this is that it may inconvenience anyone > using a distribution packaged version of Bacula. Perhaps you could make > a patch available and issue it with a statement to the effect that it > needs further testing? >
I'm still open on this, but I wouldn't release an official patch without having it properly tested, so putting out an untested patch is not what I consider a good solution. Even the current patches are not "officially" released but are attached to an open bug report. Can you explain why a patch would help with a "distribution packaged version of Bacula"? In any case, any patch to 2.0, will come after a 2.2.3 release, verification of 2.2.x patches, and proper documentation of the problem. To do it correctly, this will take some time. I only just reproduced the problem and came up with what seems like a good fix yesterday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
