Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... I'm a little skeptical > about its security value at this point (especially because hardly > anybody runs it locally, and protection on the hosting sites isn't that > hard to work around). > > So if it's causing people real pain in practice, I think there could be > an argument for downgrading the check to a warning. I don't have a > strong feeling that we _should_ do that, only that I don't personally > reject it immediately as an option. Oh, I see. I do not think I have strong objection, either. Thanks.
