Mikhail Ramendik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > We could introduce is_header usage even in 2.0.x, because the field is > present in 2.0. But is a database upgrade script acceptable, even if it > only fills in an already-present field?
I'd am very, very much against an upgrade script within a stable series. We should instead make the application robust to the missing values, and perhaps to fill them in on the fly. I'm not sure if this is possible with is_header, but I'd definitely like to try. Aaron --
