On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:27:18 +0200 Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 June 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:41:35 -0700 (PDT) > > > > In principal, we do not change defaults in a released branch. > > That's not true. It doesn't happen very often but it does happen. Which is why I used the word principal. When it happens, it is the (legitimately necessary) exception. > > This was altered after 2.4.0 was released, so obviously that > > principal was not followed. Although there is no server > > vulnerability addressed by this change, and although it is a flaw > > in implementations (and far from all implementations) which that > > All web *browsers* that support compression are affected. Only non- > browser clients are not affected. Calling that "far from all" > stretches things a bit. You would be wrong, please see my other note. > > change addressed, it seems for consistency's sake that if the > > project caused this to change in the release branch of 2.4 than it > > should change in the release branch 2.2 as well. > > I agree that it should be changed in 2.2, too. But it seems no one > had time to do it. I plan to tag in sync with Jim's 2.4 tag, this would be a lovely time to adopt such a change. > > Perhaps this time, we entertain a proper vote rather than a pair of > > devs electing to change defaults on a whim. Stable branches are > > RTC for a reason. > > Huh? We had three devs voting for the backport. What more do you want? I'd like an accurate svn commit message? Is that a bit much to ask? Or are we expected to troll through archives on every simple inquiry?
