A suggestion regarding new features

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:02 -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:

> You are right. To clarify, it is based on your role/perspective. 
> 
> Going straight to step 3 is sane from the perspective of the developer
> saving time. However, there are many circumstances where doing a Step 1
> or Step 2 is NOT a herculean carry-atlas-on-your-shoulders effort. Often
> it is very minor. The developer time is spent once, the user/sys admin
> time is spent over and over again.
> 
> I'm not sure you are arguing to always go Step 3, but if you are, not
> all developers agree with you. Apparently some care about user/sys admin
> time. Consider the adoption of rsyslog (a Step 2 solution) over
> syslog-ng (Step 3).
> 

I'm not arguing to always go to step 3. I'm explaining how it is not
INSANE. 
I'm mostly trying to make sure that the arguments made for and against
changes here are phrased so everyone understands one another. If we
cannot understand one another than we're not going to be able to figure
this out.

> I would prefer if the shepherds of my distribution of choice didn't
> treat it as a consumable.

I agree with your preference. A userbase and institutional knowledge
about a platform are not consumables. They are hard to produce and hard
to replicate.



> There are costs to incompatibility and needless churn that may not be
> obvious on first glance.

Agreed.

-sv