Bron Gondwana wrote:
One downside of your patch - it changes the network protocol of
replication so that 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 won't be able to replicate
to each other in either direction - you'll have to upgrade both
your machines at once.
I considered that and thought about making it compatible, b
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:17:39 -0400, "David S. Madole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 05 Jul 2006, at 02:54, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> >If you're running replication on any post 2.3.3 cyrus, your replica
> >contains indexes with '0' as the modseq value. This means that your
> >messages will not be
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:56:45 -0400, "Wesley Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was tracking a very similar issue with xfer between 2.2 and 2.3.6.
> xfer'ing vanilla 2.2.12 mailboxes to 2.3.6 seems to work fine, and
> xfer'ing a 2.3.6 mailbox to 2.2.12 also more or less works
> (permissions
Looks like that changes the replication protocol incompatibly, so
deployments need to update both replicas and primaries at the same time.
:wes
On 06 Jul 2006, at 17:17, David S. Madole wrote:
I submitted a patch that does actually replicate the modseq value,
although unfortunately my first e
On 05 Jul 2006, at 02:54, Bron Gondwana wrote:
If you're running replication on any post 2.3.3 cyrus, your replica
contains indexes with '0' as the modseq value. This means that your
messages will not be fetchable until you either fix that value or
patch Cyrus. Reconstruct from 2.3.6+ is one o
I was tracking a very similar issue with xfer between 2.2 and 2.3.6.
xfer'ing vanilla 2.2.12 mailboxes to 2.3.6 seems to work fine, and
xfer'ing a 2.3.6 mailbox to 2.2.12 also more or less works
(permissions are broken since 2.3.6 blindly uses rfc 4314 ACLs rather
than paying attention to
