Comment 7 for bug 1422379

Dan Wells (dbw2) wrote :

Ok, I am remembering another wrinkle. I think the extra confusing part is that the perceived effect (for at least some early versions of Evergreen, roughly pre-1.4 or pre-1.6) was a one fine_interval grace period, which some sites wanted, so the code "worked" from that perspective (the fine was dated late, but also billed at the end of each fine_interval).

In other words, any sites which relied on this baked-in one interval grace will have their historical fines not reflect that policy post upgrade-script from this branch. Is there anything we can or should do about this? I am not sure it would be possible to preserve that idiosyncracy in a meaningful way.