Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?

[Greg Hudson]

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.