On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 17:07 -0700, Martin Atkins wrote: > No, that was not addressed. I don't think there was consensus on how > best to handle backward compatibility. > > I'm happy to merge it if I'm mistaken and there was some consensus on this.
I've not seen anyone actually complain about backwards compatability. But my most recent patchset includes both conversion tools to upgrade those who are being silently bitten by this, as well as a flag which can be enabled to preserve the current broken behavior, if they so choose. I don't recall anyone being explicitly dissatisfied with the those options for dealing with the backcompat issue. - Alex
