On 3/29/2010 5:59 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > > As it turns out that the optional behaviour is the current default > behaviour, and because you were not aware of this when you made your > suggestion above, it is necessary for the option to become IncludeStrict > instead of IncludeOptional.
Trunk is not released, it is still up for discussion. You (and I, and the few other very active committers) cannot expect people to keep up with the pace of commits, as much as we would like to. The veto applies to trunk, as well. It's just that it's not terribly disruptive to leave the vetoed code on trunk, since it is very unlikely we will tag GA in the coming days or weeks. I have no dispute with the code itself, so I don't see a reason to disrupt the work of coming to an acceptable agreement. The 2.2 branch behavior is that filenames do not require a match. File paths do require a match. I have suggested that the typical user, even the experienced user is paying attention to Include [foo] as a literal, and is harmed when [foo] is accepted and does not exist. This makes as much sense as allowing LoadModule [foo] or LoadFile [foo] to succeed when [foo] does not exist. If a very small minority of users desire a feature that is harmful to the general community, the onus is on the minority of users to propose and implement their feature in a way that doesn't disrupt the vast majority of users, or cause them inconvenience.
