It's surprising to me that a regression like this is not considered a bug. Requring special options is not a bug; changing the defaults for no apparent reason is. Changing the default from noserverino to serverino means that every person with an existing installation that mounts SMB/CIFS shares will have to know about this and modify their fstab manually during any upgrade, or their shares will appear to be broken. That's hardly friendly. I know that NFS mounts did a similar thing with some of their defaults in the 3 -> 4 transition, but I don't really think that's a good model to follow and there was actually some justification for that. Is there some reason to have changed the default options used by CIFS mounts?
It's surprising to me that a regression like this is not considered a bug. Requring special options is not a bug; changing the defaults for no apparent reason is. Changing the default from noserverino to serverino means that every person with an existing installation that mounts SMB/CIFS shares will have to know about this and modify their fstab manually during any upgrade, or their shares will appear to be broken. That's hardly friendly. I know that NFS mounts did a similar thing with some of their defaults in the 3 -> 4 transition, but I don't really think that's a good model to follow and there was actually some justification for that. Is there some reason to have changed the default options used by CIFS mounts?