On 20 Jan 2022, Mark Phippard wrote:
I have made the suggestion before and I want to say there was
agreement from anyone that responded. So if nothing else anyone
that
objects to this is not speaking up. I think the main issue is
that no
one has wanted to step forward and make the change.
I think we all know there are people who legitimately want the
additional security. They are either not reading any of this or
have
decided they can accept having a compile time option and just
want to
wait and see what happens. Most likely it is the former.
Making the change can at least make them come forward again.
I've changed the Subject line to reflect that I'm concretely
proposing now that we do this. I'll volunteer to do it, though am
happy for anyone else to as well.
I think it's just a matter of reverting r1845377, right? (And
updating CHANGES, etc.)
If someone knows a reason why it's more complex than what I've
described above, please speak up.
Best regards,
-Karl
