On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, John Szakmeister <j...@szakmeister.net> wrote:
> "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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to