[16545] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Hartman)
Fri Dec 10 08:35:51 2010
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
To: krbdev@mit.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:35:42 -0500
Message-ID: <tsl7hfheonl.fsf@carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
The renewal behavior in 1.9 has broken with regard to 1.6 and 1.7 and
probably 1.8 although I cannot be entirely sure. I at least find this a
significant annoyance and regression. Should this be a blocker or not?
"Yes if someone fixes it within a day or two," would be a fine
answer. We thought about it and decided no would also be fine.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
