Hi
Apologies for the late response. I've now taken another look.
Am 2025-08-19 16:50, schrieb Vinicius Dias:
The template specifically contains an RFC impact section that is
missing from your RFC:
I added that and the RFC Impact sections. I added "None" to the
existing extensions and SAPIs. Let me know if that should be like that
or if I should just omit those sections.
Having the sections with an explicit “None” makes sense to me.
Let me know if that's enough or if I'm still missing something.
Thank you for the thorough feedback.
While I still don't agree with the RFC, I believe it now fairly
represents the discussion and I don't think anything important is
missing from the RFC.
I'm just taking a bit of an issue with the “Dislike for aliases”
section: Just because folks (me included) are against adding more
aliases, does not imply that they are in favor of removing existing
aliases. I consider both adding new aliases as well as removing aliases
to be disruptive and believe that the best action is “doing nothing” and
accepting this as another case of a historical decision that might not
have been made today.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
