> > Study of ancient source shows that the documentation has been out of > > sync with reality (if it has ever been in sync) since at least 3.3. I > > suggest we define the following as the current behavior: > > So calling it a defect on the basis of documentation you also admit is out > of date is sort of silly, isn't it?
Hey, I think I'm using the newest documentation available, how could that be outdated? ;-) Yes, I admit a certain degree of sillyness, but it's for a good cause, so I hope I'll be forgiven. :-) > I prefer the former but could be pushed the other way. Me too, but the other way around. > Since Ted McCabe implemented this originally, perhaps he has some > comment? Ah, I see. Harald. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
