On 05/04/2010 10:46 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > On 5/4/2010 5:30 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: >> On Apr 25, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Noel Jones wrote: >>> I kind of like ignoring deprecated options with the new >>> behavior noted in RELEASE_NOTES. That way existing >>> installations don't break after upgrade. >>> >>> Too many people update their whole system with yum or such >>> without ever looking at what gets upgraded or what may need >>> changing. >> >> >> Your second paragraph makes an argument against the first. People who need >> to update their config files should be broken on purpose. >> > > The software we're discussing and the OS's it runs on, for > better or worse, is reliable enough and simple enough to > configure that part-time non-technical absentee administrators > are now a fact of life. > > Intentionally screwing them might be fun, but it doesn't > advance the software any. > > Keep in mind we're trying to get more people to join the club. > Beating them and throwing them out in the street when they > mispronounce the secret word is bad for business.
Well, the admin has to be around in order to upgrade Amavis in the first place. I think the most common sanity check performed afterward is probably, "does it start?" If the admin attempts to restart Amavis and it tells him to update his config, that's better than if some missing directive silently alters Amavis' behavior for however-long. On the other hand, if he doesn't restart the box or any of the services, you don't want Amavis to crash 6 months down the road after the next power outage. The best of both worlds would be a warning for a major version or two, subject to how much of a headache that would be for the author. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
