Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 22:54:47 +0100:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:07PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100:
> > >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > >>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk
> > >>> for 1.8 release? I need to code up some more regression tests for the --cl
> > >>> "" behaviors, but I don't really want to invest that energy today if I know
> > >>> that dev@ is disinterested in seeing this new functionality in 1.8 anyway.
> > >>
> > >> Please merge it to trunk!
> > >>
> > >> This feature is already mentioned in the 1.8 draft release notes and
> > >> I'm glad to learn that you've fixed it up.
> > >
> > > I hope that's not the only reason you want to merge it --- it'd be
> > > simple to axe it from the release notes.
> > Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a bit more justification myself. Is the trunk
> > behavior what we want to ship/live with? See, I'm having a bit of trouble
> > really remembering the driving use-case here.
> Well, I was under the impression that there already was consensus
> that this was a good idea. You mentioned this feature had been discussed
> back in 2011, and it has existed on trunk for ages. So I didn't see any
> reason to question it.
> But if you're unsure about the design/implementation or the driving
> use cases, then yes, we should discuss these concerns. Could you be
> more specific about what exactly your concerns are?
I'm not sure there is strong demand for this feature and elsethread it's
pretty obvious the design isn't set in stone yet.
Personally I vote for leaving trunk as-is (with no trace of the feature)
and punting reimplementing it --- or merging cmpilato's reimplementation
--- to 1.9-consider.
Received on 2013-01-04 23:50:59 CET