Re: Parametring cancel processing (Cancel-Lock vs unauthenticated cancels)

On 1/2/22 2:41 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it shouldn't be a no-op; it should either work to override 
> the config setting or we should remove it so that it will cause an 
> error and people will have to update their configuration.  Otherwise, 
> I think we risk silent and surprising behavior change.

I too am against the no-op.

I'd much rather see it be a warning for one (or more) versions and 
eventually be tantamount to a syntax error to fail hard / fast.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die