Re: SSL Cipher Support and V7R1... and so it begins

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:52 AM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm not trying to say that the instant they declare "Fix only" support that
absolutely zero enhancements would ever be added. I am saying that adding
these ciphers DOES constitute an enhancement, not a break-fix. As such IBM
can say No to adding them. Because it potentially affects a large group
though if it was easy I expect they would do it.

Your tone is conciliatory here, and I appreciate that. But the fact
remains that you're not budging on the notion that reasonable people
can differ on what constitutes a "fix".

The fact that you think IBM would do it if it were easy raises the
question: Why then is it so important whether it's called a "fix"?
Doesn't it (and shouldn't it) really come down to a cost-benefit
analysis? If IBM (or anyone else) feels that it's too much effort for
too little gain, why does it matter which bucket it's in? Why do we
need two buckets in the first place?

Jeff Atwood does a decent job articulating what I'm trying to say:

<https://blog.codinghorror.com/thats-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-request/>

Predictably, a lot of the comments are like your responses to me. They
will probably never understand what the hell Atwood is talking about,
just as I am beginning to feel you will never understand what I am
trying to say.

But there are also a lot of comments that agree with Atwood. I guess
I'll just have to take comfort in that.

John Y.