https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7826
--- Comment #50 from John Hardin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #49) > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #48) > > Do we need a PMC vote on this detail? > > Votes on a bug imply a blocker to this bug which I'm posting here to say I'm > assuming that is NOT your intent. Please post discussion/vote/results > threads on the pmc list. > > IMO, yes, we will need a vote on ending the backwards compatibility but it > will be way down the line when we start a 4.1 branch. Voting on it now will > just be lost to the sands of time and should be left for the future PMC at > that time to decide. OK, that works.(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #49) > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #48) > > Do we need a PMC vote on this detail? > > Votes on a bug imply a blocker to this bug which I'm posting here to say I'm > assuming that is NOT your intent. Please post discussion/vote/results > threads on the pmc list. > > IMO, yes, we will need a vote on ending the backwards compatibility but it > will be way down the line when we start a 4.1 branch. Voting on it now will > just be lost to the sands of time and should be left for the future PMC at > that time to decide. Not a blocker. I was more thinking voting now to commit to and publicly declare making the support for the historical terminology permanent. This is primarily to quell objections on the list to forcing the change on users, regardless of how far down the road we kick that can. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
