On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:04:01AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > > > On 08/02/2017 07:25 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:05:19AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > >> [[So the situation is as Richard described it:]] we can of course decide > > >> to remove something before the final release. > > > Moreover, this last sentence means that you still want a sword of > > > Damocles hanging on a feature that would have not been added without your > > > interest for it. > > > > I don't think that is entirely fair. Scott was simply echoing a remark > > *I* had made (I've restored something clipped), which is totally banal: > > We can ALWAYS decide to remove something if we feel we have to do so. I > > don't think that either Scott or I see any reason to do that now or > > expect that there will be any such reason later. I, at least, just meant > > to point out that deciding not to take a second vote doesn't mean we > > can't act later if we feel we have to do so. Obviously. > > > > And just to be clear, the kind of reason that could possibly lead to > > removal of needauth, say, would NOT lie in the sorts of abstact > > considerations that have dominated recent discussion. Rather, it would > > emerge from testing, i.e., from problems encountered by users. So there > > is no suggestion here, either, that we should re-litigate the issue. > > Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure this was the > correct interpretation. I must say that I had a hard time trying to > correctly interpret some decisions.
I have now committed the shell escape patch. Note that it introduces some string changes. It can be further refined and improved, of course. Also note that I will be unavailable the next couple of days. -- Enrico
