On 9/25/2006 3:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 12:04:02PM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
>> 
>> Ok as a counter to this, what about people who use some form of package 
>> management, do it's upgrade method, and wonder why now they've ended up with 
>> a bloched replication system, because there was no embeded call to the 
>> upgrade functions via slonik?  Granted somone blindly doing upgrades in this 
>> manner is asking for problems but in that case should we hand them the gun 
>> with a round in the chamber and the safety off?
> 
> I was assuming that package managers qualified as "experts".  It's
> true they don't always, but that's no excuse to make the whole system
> more complicated for the plain case.  At least, IMO.

I can see how having the version number in the files we provide can be 
useful as well as harmful. It is useful for those who need 2 different 
Slony versions on the same box for different DB's. It would be harmfull 
for those who install a new package, assume they are running on the new 
version and silently, without any warning or error, their replication 
continues to use the old, buggy version of Slony.

Pick your poison.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #