On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some >> config-changes on users after the 'experimental' phase, which >> isn't even proposed, in this case. >> >> We want to be pretty strict about config changes, and the >> suggested white > black list behavior based on the core >> enable directive would cause 2.4.x "maintenance" users >> (using that term very loosely) to potentially change their >> config, which I consider rude. But not everyone here has >> to agree with me /shrug > > Are you suggesting we hold off until you had a chance to put together a patch > to fix this? > > If so, please update STATUS to stay so.
I will not vote -1 on any 2.4 changes, you all live with whatever results you obtain. I'm strictly focused on 2.next, and will let you all alter 2.4 however you like, as 2.4.next is entirely dissimilar from 2.4.1 (and I support every flavor essentially every month.) Do as you will... I'm moving on... I'm only reminding you of conversations clearly documented on this dev@ list. You know where to find those. If you want to further note it, go ahead, but I can't promise to be the first one to write that agreed-upon alteration. Cheers, Bill