On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote: > Unhelpful for whom? If we ship the latest, secure config from the single > release branch, we wouldn't be encumbered by having to use tricks for fixes.
I think we're getting off into the weeds a bit here. My belief is that most users extend the configuration, and different users want different behaviors even if they use the same distribution. Most users at any given time want no changes at all beyond the required security fixes. I don't feel like "directives" are even a secondary source of any of the recent regressions. In reality, gating changes behind directives would have likely avoided a good deal of the regressions if we had a different tolerance for such a thing or the impacts could have been anticipated. That's why I don't see any benefit in prohibiting new directives in a reworked service stream being managed as more stable, even without weighing any of the other tradeoffs. I see only risk in that fixes can only be delivered when they are safe for 100% of users 100% of the time. > In the same vein of thought, if it is disruptive to a config, that signals a > minor bump. Patch changes must be forward compatible. This doesn't really differ from the status quo.
