Github user srowen commented on the issue:
    I do not see a problem with the commit message here. Is that really the 
issue? it accurately describes _what_ changes. The _why_ has always been 
documented in discussion, and it is here already. Sometimes the _why_ is 
documented in comments too; I don't see a particular need for that here, but, 
if that's the issue, why isn't that what we're talking about?
    You continue to portray this as a behavior change, and I think you mean "a 
change in what is considered correct behavior". However all the other comments 
suggest otherwise; the argument from consistency seems much stronger.
    Your proposed criteria for backports sort of align with accepted practice, 
which is to follow semantics. I think semver is reasonably clear, in 
general and in this case. I see broad agreement for this backport, and people 
simply disagree with your interpretation. It is not a failure to understand 
    Believe me, people here have plenty experience with software, versioning, 
and the impact of changes. I'd put more faith in the judgment of your peers. 
Your anecdotes are of a type that's familiar to many people, but, I also fail 
to see how they're relevant here.
    You are adopting a 'conservative' position and I think in this case it's 
out of line with normal practice. I think you should accept that people 
disagree and move on.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to