Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So your rationale to reject a perfectly logical behavior that *everyone* agrees > with is that it might break a hypothetical patch? Everyone is an overstatement, as there are only Sergey and you, and as we all saw in public some members stated they will not engage in a discussion thread in which you were involved. In addition, at PLC I've seen people complain about how quickly a discussion that involves you becomes unproductive---they may have better sence of backward compatibility concern than you two, but they are staying silent (they are wiser than I am). > Just do `--silent` instead. I am *not* shutting the door for "--no-patch"; I am only saying that it shouldn't be done so hastily. Indeed "--silent" or "--squelch" is one of the things that I plan to suggest when we were to go with "--no-patch is no longer -s" topic. But conflating the two will delay the fix for "-s sticks unnecessarily" that is ready for this cycle. Anyway, I will be wiser and will stay out of this thread from now on, as long as you are involved.
