[mythtv-users] protocol version mismatch, what's the best solution?

[Rick]

Kevin Kuphal wrote:
> Alexander Fisher wrote:
>   
>> On 03/10/06, Kevin Kuphal <kuphal at dls.net> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Alexander Fisher wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> I think, (rightly or wrongly), most people made the assumption that
>>>> all versions from the 0.20 branch would be compatible.  This would be
>>>> true whether the version was an official point release such as 0.20.1,
>>>> or taken straight from svn (0.20 fixes branch).
>>>>
>>>> Under such a scheme, if the fix was critical and unavoidable, a 0.21
>>>> release would be required, (and a separate branch for this release
>>>> would be created before committing the fix).  Alternatively, perhaps a
>>>> workaround that didn't involve a protocol change was possible for the
>>>> fixes branch whilst the proper fix could have been made in svn trunk?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> The point is, no release has been made other than 0.20.  If someone is
>>> tracking an SVN branch, even -fixes (as many package maintainers are),
>>> they are tracking a pre-release.  It is then reasonable to expect that
>>> things are not necessarily compatible until an official release.
>>>     
>>>       
>> Are you suggesting that 0.20-fixes will become compatible again with
>> 0.20 in the future?
>>   
>>     
> No.  I'm saying that 0.20.1 (which 0.20-fixes is a *pre-release* of) 
> will be compatible with itself just as 0.20 is compatible with 0.20.
>   
>> I think package maintainers are tracking the fixes branch out of
>> necessity.  The actual 0.20 release was never going to be especially
>> defect free without a longish period of testing, release candidates
>> etc.
>>   
>>     
> It is their choice and they can deal with the consequences.  No release 
> is defect free.
>   
>> I'm not sure myth would benefit much from release candidates, but in
>> lieu of a perfect, bug free release, a fixes branch is very welcome.
>> Its just a bit of a shame it now contains more than just 'fixes'.
>>   
>>     
> You can stop spreading that rumor.  The fix required a protocol change.  
> Plain and simple.  If you keep your systems at the same revision, you 
> will *never* have a problem.   The problem here is people upgrading half 
> their system to a pre-release version and then wondering why it breaks.
>
> Kevin
>   
None of this explains why a yum update and smart update upgrade on the 
appropriate machines running the same os, Fedora,  one after the other 
gives the protocol mismatch on the backend (for me at least).  Surely 
this is the exact way one is to update a system via the packages.  It 
didn't work and still doesn't work. Everything looks fine but obviously 
I've got a problem somewhere, just can't find it.  I'd say the main 
problem is that a lot of us are simple folk, brainy enough to get it 
working but throw a little curve ball at us and we're stumped.  A lot of 
us semi-literate linux users got caught upgrading because we thought we 
should be upgrading to the "fixes" that should be fixing not breaking 
things.  If it weren't so much fun I'd cry.

Rick