Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a
>> comment to point out why we would want to check these values even
>> on a reset to a previously-used value.
>
> +1 for such a comment.
Will do.
>>> I assume that you're thinking we'd only fix this in master?
>>
>> Without this, I don't think it's possible for someone to enforce
>> protection of their data through SSI in an ironclad way. So
>> there is at least some case to be made to take it back as far as
>> 9.1.
>
> I'm OK with that, but perhaps the only-tangentially-related
> changes where you swap the order of certain error messages ought
> to be separated out and committed only to master? That stuff
> doesn't seem like material for a back-patch.
Agreed. I'm not sure we want to change the message text at all in
9.1. Translations and all that.
-Kevin