Hi Erwan, Since you reverted fully but there was still a bug in the original code I've gone ahead and fixed it in r990347.
Thanks Scott On 27/08/2010, at 3:46 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > Le 26/08/2010 16:41, David E Jones a écrit : >> Yes, please do revert the attribute changes, even in the trunk. There is a >> big backwards compatibility issue with things like this and even if we did >> decide to change these attribute names (which I don't think we should, there >> is no precedent for attribute names like these and therefore no consistency >> with attributes on other tags), then the Java code should accept both names >> so that existing code does not break. This is what I did before with the >> simple-method stuff when making the attribute names more consistent, and is >> vital when attribute names are changed. >> >> Either way, this should be discussed on the dev mailing list first. It's >> kind of an unpleasant surprise to have things changed like this for those >> who are using them, and we need a much better reason than something along >> the lines of "I like this other name better". If other committers were >> making that sort of change for things you are using, it would be pretty >> annoying wouldn't it? >> >> -David > > Sorry guys... > It has just been reverted at 989772. > > Regards, > > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
