|
|
|
|
|
|
by philipwhiuk
926 days ago
|
|
|
> fail to see why one would need to write a long blog post and maintain a fork because of something like this... Probably because, and it certainly appears the case, that the process is being ruled by fiat not by good technical/policy decisions (and the approach of broadcast is intended to replace the fiat by overwhelming numbers) |
|
|
The maintainer already said: he thought it was a clear improvement, so it landed on master. Now that it has landed and people use it, people react to it, and it turns out the old behavior was well beloved and it's already decided it will stay through an option. Now further details are discussed. This has happened many times before. Just give it a bit of time, voice your opinion, and hopefully a consensus will be achieved (and if not, yes, the maintainer has the last word, that's how it supposed to be).
This is the master branch. It often takes months to flesh out these kind of things. You might say this should be done on a feature branch, but these get used much less and hence you'll get much less feedback.