Am 17.07.2026, 20:39:00 schrieb Paul M. Jones <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > Primary pushback thus far has not been on the functionality per se but on > the directive name itself. The currently-suggested equivalent alternatives > are: >
> > ``` > strict_namespace=1 (RFC as-is) > legacy_name_fallback=0 (R. Tommins) > global_fallback=0 (T. Düsterhus) > disable_root_ns_fallback=1 (A. Rock) > ``` > > Of those, I'd be OK with `global_fallback=0` (though I do still prefer > `strict_namespace=1`). > In my opinion it makes sense to vote on the concept and then have a secondary vote on the name. I‘d argue everyone agrees we need this but with only one option it might fail. > Are there any further suggestions or objections on this point? > > > -- pmj >
