On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 09:49:13AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > I'm not arguing that the change is bad or shouldn't have been done, > just that it is a very surprising change in design philosophy, and > projects that make surprising design changes without concern for > existing use patterns
And the fact that we carefully considered this case, discussed it, and came to a conclusion, does not comfort you? That we documented known workarounds for this uses case even though it has never been officially supported? It's not like we are being secretive about it or didn't care about users who use this "feature". > make me nervous about what other surprises may be lurking in them. Any other surprises we know about are documented in the release notes. If there are additional ones we don't know about them and they will hopefully be found during beta testing. If you find one, let us know :)
