> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Alexander Nasonov <alnsn%yandex.ru@localhost> wrote: > > If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case > of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the > "obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking > backward compatibility. You are correct, and this is why I discussed it with core before doing it. In fact the name "block" instead of "deny" was suggested by a core member: I chose "block" over "deny" because of similarity to the previous name, and because some of the API's start with "bl_" and would not need to be modified. If "deny" was chosen instead, these would probably need to be changed to "dl_" and that prefix is associated with the dynamic linker. Best, christos
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP