> scope creep.
I think it is unfair to label this scope creep; it would have to be newly
considered for 4.0 for it to fall under that umbrella.
I don't personally mind if it lands, but this was discussed at length on
multiple occasions over the past year, and only stalled because of a
>
> Someone once said:
In my opinion, sniping like this doesn't help us move the conversation
forward. Please reach out to other contributors who's behavior you have
concerns with separately.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:23 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> This isn't a hill to die on or something to
This isn't a hill to die on or something to binding -1 for me
personally. In a vacuum this merge is totally fine. The problem for me
comes in if a merge like this is one of 10, or 50, or 100 things that
are innocuous in isolation. IMO as long as we make sure this is the
only cut we do to ourselves
Someone once said:
"I heard the expression recently that “there are ten ways to do this, and
eight of them will work.” I think that applies to most of the code we
write. We don't need to spend a lot of time discussing which of the eight
is best; let’s trust the judgement of the original author
It seems to me that we need to get better at making decisions for things
like that.
If we keep on arguing for small things, it will simply be time consuming
and painfull for everybody.
In this case, the situation seems simple.
Part of the group do not agree with the proposal. We just have to
