Comment # 3
on bug 1046
from Nathan Scott
(In reply to comment #2)
> From having dipped into the code, we'd need to do a couple of things:
> [...]
OK, sounds tricky but promising.
> The changing-the-definition part merits thought about how we envision
> handling smallish changes to the archive format. Must we bump
> archive-major-version numbers?
Sounds very likely, based on my understanding of your description.
> Or can we tolerate old version
> tools to slightly misbehave on newer data (as opposed to refusing to
> process them outright)?
Depends on the definition of "slightly misbehave", but it certainly sounds like
a format version bump would be required and a planned transition will be
needed. That's easily doable though, even in a stable series... opt-in
initially (e.g. pmlogger command line arg to enable it, and defaulting to
back-compatible v2 format) until a future major release where it could become
default.
cheers.