I disagree.
* If the point is to express some kind of warning to users, I think the
community has been much better served by leaving experimental settings
undocumented (or documented only in unmerged topic branches). It feels like
an experimental.* tree is a doorway to putting experimental features in
official releases, which seems odd considering that (IMHO) git has so far
done very well with the carefully-planned-out integration of all sorts of
features.
* Part of the experiment is coming up with appropriate configuration knobs,
including where those knobs should live. Often such considerations lead to a
better implementation for the feature. Dumping things into an experimental.*
tree would merely postpone that part of the feature's design.
* Such a tree creates a flag day when the experimental feature eventually
becomes a "real" feature. That'll annoy any early adopters. Sure, they
*should* be prepared to deal with config tree bike-shedding, but still that
extra churn seems unnecessary.
M.
Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>