Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> writes: > I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of > time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis.
If we're going to expect there to be a transition period, I would prefer the time be defined, rather than left for case-by-case argument. If folks would prefer that we have zero delay (as soon as Policy standardizes a facility currently only supported by systemd, people can start using it immediately), that's viable from a Policy perspective. But it's hard (and not particularly fun) work on Policy to decide a reasonable non-zero delay on a case-by-case basis for every feature. Ian's text says that we always introduce new feature descriptions and then pick something between six months and a year before people get to start using the new thing, and provides an easy out that in the case of disagreement we can just always pick a year and be done. This may slow progress, but it removes a point of argument, which is very appealing. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
