[16546] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Yu)
Fri Dec 10 13:13:52 2010
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:13:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <tsl7hfheonl.fsf@carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org> (Sam Hartman's
message of "Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:35:42 -0500")
Message-ID: <ldv62v1338l.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU> writes:
> 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?
Is this behavior change occurring on the KDC side or the client side?
If we can quickly determine that it was broken in 1.8, I wouldn't
necessarily classify it as a blocker.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
