I wanted the question to be more of the form "is compatibility between
minor releases more important to you than client/server
secure-by-default functionality?" -- with the suspicion that an embedded
user doesn't really care about client/server security and thus would opt
for compatibility. But even client/server users may care more about
compatibility than increased security. Just to help us inform our
decision here.
This is assuming, if I understand things right, that the incompatibility
arises because we're improving authentication between the network client
and the server, with this security enabled by default.
David
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
On 2/28/07, Lars Heill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
> Everyone else seemed non-committal. Unless the community continues the
> discussion and reaches consensus, the decision may be up to the next
> release manager.
Nice one :)
Cheers,
Lars
I thought I saw a comment re asking the user list, but I can't
remember seeing one. Did I invent/miss something?
Myrna
Hi Myrna,
David made that suggestion. Dan noted that our conventions don't give
the user list a decisive say here. I'm a little unclear about what
question to pose. Perhaps one of these:
1) Would calling this release 11.0 make it less likely that you would be
blindsided by these incomatibilities?
2) Would calling this release 11.0 make it less likely that you would
install this release?
Regards,
-Rick
