Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration
- From
John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>
- Date
- Oct 16, 2013, 15:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAEBDL5UaowCZggHijoqPF2UP5B6Y6Bkr9eP+A-Z3-x71W1Oi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAEBDL5We2wshgMZcTXoDziXskKvb9s2=2DEZtXRBgbTiitCOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> wrote: [snip]
Show 16 quoted lines
> "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