Wait so this guy decided to fork the project, and seemingly abused his position to supplant the previous version with his own opinionated fork? All this while disregarding the opinion of upstream devs themselves and being arrogant and stubborn in his replies.
What an spectacular way to break things for end users.
If there's one thing to learn and apply from Linus, IMHO, is his attitude about NEVER breaking userspace in the Kernel. This lesson can be adapted to most software, and we really should strive to more of it, not less (obviously adjusting to each case; here, replace "userspace" with "user setups")
First, this is not in Debian stable (yet). Issues like this is one reason why Debian testing/unstable exist. Secondly, it is common and expected for distributions to select the feature flags they deem appropriate. It is not a fork. The mistake here was not to provide a compatible upgrade option in addition to the new default.
When I found out that it was just in unstable my position flipped on it. The guy has
no business being as crass as he is in the comments section of the GH issue but lack of tact from an opinionated software dev in internet discourse is nothing new. And the point behind the petty of switching to package/package-full, which is pretty standard in the Debian world, is perfectly reasonable so long as it happens on a major version bump.
I don't disagree that it's annoying to the upstream devs but c'est la vie when you have a bunch of 3rd parties repackaging your code. They won't be the first to have a "uninstall your distro's package and install the upstream version before reporting a bug" in their issue template.
What an spectacular way to break things for end users.
If there's one thing to learn and apply from Linus, IMHO, is his attitude about NEVER breaking userspace in the Kernel. This lesson can be adapted to most software, and we really should strive to more of it, not less (obviously adjusting to each case; here, replace "userspace" with "user setups")