keyword expansion and post_commit hook in 2.0 (was Re: DRAFT 2.0.0 ANNOUNCEMENT)

[Ian Clatworthy]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Martin Pool writes:
> 
>  > But the change (4600 on bzr.2.0) really is just adding a hook and
>  > calling it, and I think it is reasonably safe.
> 
> All I'm saying, and I repeat it, is that
> 
>  > > I think you vastly underestimate just how picky such users can be.
>  > > You're running a substantial risk with little gain that I can see.
> 
> I'll add that the risk is losing the trust of a vocal group of users.
> And since the effect of this change will manifest as an unexpected,
> bzr-induced change in a file, I don't think they'll be quiet about it.

I still don't understand exactly what point you're arguing. We added a
"feature" after 2.0rc1? If so, 2.0rc1 was incorrectly named - it was
meant to be called 2.0beta1. After it was released and announced, it was
too late to change it.

Normally, we're very strict about what lands in an RC. Only critical
bugs and low-risk doc fix/improvements are allowed, though the final
call is up to whatever risk the RM is prepared to take. 2.0rc1 to 2.0rc2
was *not* a normal RC increment for us. See above.

Coming back to the root issue, I (and many users) wanted keywords and
EOL support fixed by 2.0.0. The hook the bzr-keywords plugin needs is in
(but keywords itself doesn't use it yet but will RSN); the patch both
need to correctly work after a pull or merge is *not*.

FWIW, as RM, poolie refused to take the risk that patch carried the day
or two before 2.0.0 went gold. That was much to my disappointment but a
perfectly reasonable decision. It will *hopefully* be approved and land
in 2.1b1 and 2.0.1.

Ian C.