On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:18:39 -0500, Paul Iadonisi <pri.rhl3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Though generally I agree it's a good idea to push stuff like this > upstream, based on the last discussion on this list with one of the > OpenSSH developers, I have to wonder if it's going to do any good in > this case. Oh i didnt say it would do any good ultimately. My point is upstream's perspective should be presented as early on in the discussion as possible if there are rational reasons upstream used to justify the change. If there aren't rational reasons, a reference to an upstream discussion where the developers were told they are on-crack would suffice. Either upstream has a rational reason or they don't, either way the discussion should happen upstream first and that discussion cited as reference for downstream discussions. > And based on Havoc Pennington's recent response to this thread, if > he's correct, then it's a silly default which should be reverted. if.... I saw some assumption making about upstream's motivation.. i didn't see a citation reference to an upstream discussion. I'd like to see some effort to present upstream's point of view...fairly...before we starting etching our guesses of their intentions in stone. Maybe they are actually crazy.... but i'd much rather see a reference to previous upstream discussion that gives perspective, than watch a one-sided argument. -jef
