Is QQ2008 a safe default?

[Ka-Hing Cheung]

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 10:49 -0700, Mark Doliner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Will Thompson <will at willthompson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've had a few reports against telepathy-haze that the default QQ
> > protocol version, QQ2005, doesn't work any more, and that changing that
> > setting to QQ2008 makes it work fine. I believe one of them checked that
> > the behaviour is the same in Pidgin.
> >
> > If QQ2005 really doesn't work, it would appear to make sense to bump the
> > default protocol version to QQ2008 (and possibly remove QQ2005
> > entirely). I was about to commit a patch to change the default protocol
> > version, but thought I'd poll #pidgin first. John noted that “someone
> > made mention of the potential for that version to break accounts”. Is
> > this the case? Even if so, is it better to have a default that works in
> > most cases, as opposed to (apparently) never working? :-)
> 
> This change makes sense to me.  I've also experienced QQ2005 not
> working and QQ2008 working.

I emailed the openq guys a couple months ago and they were against it at
the time. The rationale was that QQ2005 may work for some people, while
the QQ2008 one would prompt you to reactivate the account every once in
a while so it's not very usable.

I don't know that QQ2005 works for anyone at all, and I don't object to
any changes to it.

-khc