Ned wrote:

> Senthil, I am not sure which previous message you are referring to but.

I meant, the messages from other developers who raised that change broke certain test cases.

Ned, but I got little concerned, if we planned to revert the change. 

> the only way we *should* proceed with the current changes is by including more information in a What's New entry and the NEWS blurb about that the implications to users are of these changes.

I agree with completely. I will include an additional blurb for this change for security fix versions.


Greg wrote:

> There is no less intrusive fix as far as I can see.  I believe we're down to either stick with what we've done, or do nothing.

Exactly my feeling too.

> It doesn't have to be the same choice in all release branches, being more conservative with changes the older the stable branch is okay.  (ie: removing this from 3.6 and 3.7 seems fine even if more recent ones do otherwise)

I hadn't considered that. But it wont save much will be my opinion. The users will have to upgrade to supported versions anyway and it will break then. The problem is only pushed a little. 

So, keeping it consistent seems alright to me. It is a little additional for everyone, but we seem to be doing it.