Hi David, > > This close to a release, I think we should stick with requiring HOME > > to be non-empty if it's set as otherwise there's too many paths to > > consider which the test harness probably doesn't exercise. > > I'd rather crank out an RC3 than pass up the opportunity to solidify > the behaviour here.
The behaviour cannot solidify further. :-) It's clear, determinate, predictable, and simple to document. I thought RCn+1 was meant to be minimal differences from RCn? That's why Andy Bradford's POP3 patch is post 1.8. Switching the behaviour of a set-but-empty HOME now seems significant given some value for HOME must be chosen. And will mean another round of testing by others on top of your time. > Ken's point that different treatmet of unset vs empty HOME is a mistake > is fairly compelling for me. I've covered that in my reply to kre just now. -- Cheers, Ralph.
