Backwards compatibility of the 'authors' revision property?

[Ben Finney]

Matt Nordhoff <mnordhoff at mattnordhoff.com> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Matt Nordhoff <mnordhoff at mattnordhoff.com> writes:
> > 
> >> When the 'authors' revision property was added, ISTM it was
> >> changed so that new revisions will only ever have the 'authors'
> >> revprop, and no 'author' revprop. This is bad for interacting
> >> with older clients, isn't it? They'll only miss a bit of
> >> information in "bzr log", but still.
> 
> The new code's answer to the "single person who owns this revision"
> problem is to just pick the first person in the list of authors.
> It's not perfect, but it's simple and works.

You're saying that the ‘author’ (singular) property is still present
for older clients that expect it to be there?

-- 
 \       “A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater |
  `\       than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to |
_o__)                                  avoid trouble.” —Mahatma Gandhi |
Ben Finney