Deciding what modes to keep.
dfoxfranke at gmail.com
Fri Sep 30 19:46:49 UTC 2016
On 9/30/16, Gary E. Miller <gem at rellim.com> wrote:
> So any upward extensible is fine, but trivial back-compatibility is
So what do you propose? We currently have insecure defaults. This must
change, and *tautologically*, such a change necessarily involves
breaking backward compatibility somewhere. I am proposing what I think
is smallest and least invasive of all possible changes which achieve
secure defaults. Do you disagree with this judgement?
More information about the devel