Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?
ghudson at MIT.EDU
Fri Dec 10 15:25:12 EST 2010
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 08:35 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The renewal behavior in 1.9 has broken with regard to 1.6 and 1.7 and
> probably 1.8 although I cannot be entirely sure. I at least find this a
> significant annoyance and regression. Should this be a blocker or not?
Regardless of whether it's a blocker, I expect to be able to fix it next
Tuesday or Wednesday (I'm on vacation through Monday).
This probably broke in r23883 (2010-04-12) when I reworked the
validation/renewal APIs to use gc_via_tkt.
More information about the krbdev