New 1.14 RC date?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andrew Bennetts writes:

 > We already do tend to prefer earlier in the cycle rather than later
 > for disruptive changes.  It's not an iron-clad rule.

OK.

N.B.  I think Brisbane core is a more disruptive change than anyone
has yet suggested.  Specifically, I think that a radical improvement
in performance is going to invite more experiments on the scale of
Emacs and Python, and on to the next order of magnitude.  That's what
you want, of course, but also has a potential to be very disruptive by
pulling in an audience with new and insistent demands.  Robert and
others who were around for lkml's brief flirtation with Arch will know
what I'm referring to.

 > >  > My point here, which you seem to have missed, is that "ready for
 > >  > release" has several inputs,
 > > 
 > > No, I didn't miss it.  I'm deliberately ignoring it because you're
 > > absolutely right, but it's irrelevant to my point.  My point, which
 > > you may have missed, is that I am delegating that *technical*
 > > judgment[1] to the contributor of the code, who presumably is taking
 > > those inputs into account.
 > 
 > If my point is irrelevant to yours, I'm not sure why you replied to my mail
 > to Matthew in the first place!

Because your emails focus on issues that only Bazaar developers can
judge anyway.[1]  Thanks for explaining, but we[2] already trust you
on that.  OTOH, my impression at the time, which evidently was wrong,
was that this was an exception to the process, being made because of
the importance of the feature.  That point is something that outsiders
can judge reasonably accurately based on what insiders say, but was (I
thought) being totally ignored.

I presume that the "insiders" *knew* that this was conforming to
process, and so didn't see a need to worry about it.  No biggie, *I*
was wrong.  Sorry for the confusion!

 > It's one thing to say ~I think your judgement is wrong.~ But when
 > you're talking about ego, you're also saying ~I think you are being
 > selfish~ and I strongly disagree with that claim.  I may well be
 > wrong

You are wrong about the definition and connotations of "ego".  Here's
one dictionary's definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/).  I see
no "selfish" in there.  The meaning I have in mind is #4; the danger
I'm pointing to is a bias toward relying on insiders' judgment rather
than process, whose extreme form would correspond to #3.

ego
1.     the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling,
       and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of
       others and from objects of its thought.
2.     Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that
       experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates
       between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the
       social and physical environment.
3.     egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more
       unbearable each day.
4.     self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his
       ego.
5.     (often initial capital letter) Philosophy.
       a.     the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
       b.     Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and
              soul.
6.     Ethnology. a person who serves as the central reference point
       in the study of organizational and kinship relationships


Footnotes: 
[1]  With the exception of the one that Ben Finney points out, which
is one of those YMMV things.

[2]  FSVO "we" including me, at least.<wink>