On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, John Szakmeister <j...@szakmeister.net> wrote: [snip] > "probably a minority" -- I guess that's the part I disagree with. I'm > not sure what a minority means here, but I don't think it'll be a > handful of people. How big does that number get before we get > concerned about backlash from users if we decide to change course? > Or, is that simply not an issue? Why or why not? I have to be > honest, if the option was available, I'd have my developers turn it > on. I'm sure a great deal of others would do so too. > > Is there some other way we can solve this? Having an experimental > branch with all the 2.0 features merged and those concerned can just > build that version? I see the downside of that too: it's not as easy > for people to try, and there is nothing preventing folks from posting > binaries with the new behaviors enabled. It leads me to feeling that > we're stuck in some regard. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic > here, and it's really all a non-issue. As I said earlier, it'd be > nice if others chimed in here.
Thinking about this a little more, we do have a proving ground. That's what the whole pu/next/master construct is for. So maybe this is a non-issue. By the time it lands on master, we should have decided whether the feature is worth keeping or not. -John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
