| To: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:13:44 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140918203331.GB8153@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20140708004813.GF22029@xxxxxxxxxx> <704756615.50701778.1410922470036.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140918203331.GB8153@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | 3izyv8GQZsrHNz8gaJXW/8c4KmlEOQ== |
| Thread-topic: | in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review |
----- Original Message ----- > > > I just noticed mention above of "more useful [config file] format" - > > set an alarm bell ringing - is that a backwards-compatible change? > > (and which standard is referred to - the usual pcp .options format? > > [...] > > Yup, and no, it is not backward compatible. [...] > What is the resulting / user-observed behaviour when a new daemon is started with the existing configuration format? FWIW, another option is a format conversion tool, external to the daemon, so that the old format can be gracefully retired without a need to keep compat code forever inside the daemon. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] [RFC] Reducing installed PCP package sizes, Ken McDonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |