Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Thomas Goirand <email@example.com> writes:
> I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of
> time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis.
If we're going to expect there to be a transition period, I would prefer
the time be defined, rather than left for case-by-case argument. If folks
would prefer that we have zero delay (as soon as Policy standardizes a
facility currently only supported by systemd, people can start using it
immediately), that's viable from a Policy perspective. But it's hard (and
not particularly fun) work on Policy to decide a reasonable non-zero delay
on a case-by-case basis for every feature.
Ian's text says that we always introduce new feature descriptions and then
pick something between six months and a year before people get to start
using the new thing, and provides an easy out that in the case of
disagreement we can just always pick a year and be done.
This may slow progress, but it removes a point of argument, which is very
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>