Re: GSSAPI, SSPI - include_realm default

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea
> > > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the
> > > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it
> > > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls.
> >
> > I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this
> > is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we
> > not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree
> > with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well
> > comment that the default is changed in 9.5.
>
> I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released
> feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add
> a recommendation is fine.

Alright, I don't agree but it's not worth the argument. I'll work on
the doc-update patch for the back-branches.

Thanks,

Stephen