Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>> No, as an 8.0.x is mean to be for minor changes/fixes/improvements
>> ... 'addressing a patnt conflict', at least in ARC's case, is a major
>> change, which is why we are looking at a short dev cycle for 8.1 ...
>
>
> Then we better make sure that 8.0 -> 8.1 does not require dump&reload.
> However unlikely we judge the patent problem to actually bite people,
> we cannot force 8.0.x users into a dump&reload upgrade by not
> providing a backport when it happens.
>
>
>
There was some mention of an upgrade tool which would avoid the need for
a dump/restore - did that idea die?
cheers
andrew
