> **THIS** is why I called a vote for publicly committing to permanent > backwards compatibility and why I am so painfully dismayed that Kevin > seems to be so set against it. > > Kevin, will you *please* reconsider your position, in the interests of the > *USERS*? > > Would offering backwards compatibility behind a config option (as Oliver > suggests), and which is never removed absent a compelling technical > reason, be a reasonable compromise? >
I am opposed to the use of racially charged language in the software and would therefore be opposed to permanent backwards compatibility. I am however supportive of a period of transition and I am working hard trying to find a good middle ground technically so admins have a straightforward path for the installation of SpamAssassin 4.0. I am open to discussions on how to make that happen and have mentioned that on the thread with the PMC. Regard, KAM
