Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort > >> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from > >> the very beginning [1]. That is, first make "-f -" available, and > >> make it required only in some later version. If we'd back-patched > >> the optional feature back in April, it might've been okay to require > >> it in v12, but we failed to provide any transition period. > > > ... just like we didn't provide any transistion period for the > > recovery.conf changes. > > Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition > period. I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one, > either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether > the benefits of the change merit forced breakage.
We didn't put any effort into trying to provide a transition period, and for good reason- everyone gets 5 years of transition time. I'd be just as happy to not even commit the change to make -f- go to stdout in the back-branches, if I didn't feel that the behavior of it going to a file called ./- was really just an outright bug in the first place. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
