[16548] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Fri Dec 10 15:25:18 2010
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsl7hfheonl.fsf@carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:25:12 -0500
Message-ID: <1292012712.20307.440.camel@ray>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 08:35 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 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?
Regardless of whether it's a blocker, I expect to be able to fix it next
Tuesday or Wednesday (I'm on vacation through Monday).
This probably broke in r23883 (2010-04-12) when I reworked the
validation/renewal APIs to use gc_via_tkt.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
