Open-Source Feature Rejections

Why didn't they discuss the feature with the maintainers before working on it?

That's not the author's point. They did try to improve the behavior in a future commit and were shot down. Hard it seems. So were any requests from others to change this before release.

It's all good! It was proposed, but decided to have an RFC first. Your point is still correct, just wanted to make sure to clarify this detail :)

This was written in the context of a discussion about showing resistance or not to feature requests by users sorry for the confusion.

Happy to be corrected. Zero chance it was implemented due to my feedback.

I'd be interested if this has been brought up with the dev team via IRC, mailing list, or some other medium so they can explain their reasoning?

No, they indicated it was "by design" in the bug report. I suspect they decided it wasn't worth their time to maintain it.

Read the mailing list thread: the patch did much more than making the change optional, it did revert other related changes. That's why it was rejected. Other discussed changes were taken in, and it's not settled yet it seems: the discussion is on-going.I find the reporting here very one sided and uselessly dramatic. I read the thread and don't see arrogance, just (sometimes strong) differences of opinion. Calling "arrogant" anyone who don't agree and fold to your

Two reasons:1) It's not a standard at all. Some guy made a webpage and used the word "we". Even in the GitHub issues there was debate about what having this variable set would mean (e.g. should a call to a formatting service be blocked).2) One maintainer pointed out that being an early adopter would force them into advocacy that they aren't prepared to do. Judging from how argumentative Sneak was being, there's probably an element of "we don't want to be

Anyone have a reference for where that in particular was rejected by BDFL fiat?