From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com (mail-lj1-f196.google.com [209.85.208.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737DC46971A for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:39:57 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id a13so15659246ljm.10 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 05:39:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:39:55 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20191209133955.GA8196@atlas> References: <20191129233922.36600-1-k.sosnin@tarantool.org> <20191130203439.GA23478@atlas> <13437800-f8ec-1964-f7d7-a01581e242ad@tarantool.org> <20191202070715.GA27802@atlas> <20191206114244.umbeo556b2atuhjm@tarantool.org> <20191206201718.GA7299@atlas> <20191209110631.srknhyc3zpn5cjsy@tarantool.org> <20191209112428.GB25729@atlas> <20191209132555.qn25wsxoa5lr4252@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191209132555.qn25wsxoa5lr4252@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] box: remove unicode_ci for functions List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kirill Yukhin Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy * Kirill Yukhin [19/12/09 16:28]: > > Who is "we"? > > We are team of Tarantool developers working for MailRU Group. Actually this decision was made without any discussions - it was quickly hacked in back in 2018. Maybe you and Nikita had some discussion prompted by Peter's firm stance that we should uppercase, but that was it. I protested several times while I was still on board but had not anticipated how bad the solution would turn out to be when it is implemented to follow through on time. Now it is still not to late - bit it's getting more late every day. What we learned since then is that every single newbie trips over it. > We had pretty much discussions internally on the matter and > came up with this decision: we won't break backward compatibility > in order to add some sugar. What backward compatibility do you think will be broken? > > > I don't see this has been discussed & rejected, so why are you > > thinking you can make this decision? > > All I can see on the matter is issue #4467 which we agreed to > be broken by design. I see no solid proposals neither in discussions > nor in github issues on how it supposed to work. If it will occur - > we'll happily consider it. > > > Maybe "we" instead of making "decisions" goes to users and > > customers and asks them what they expect? > > Why not to ask if public demands free beer? Right now business > dictates us to work on other things. Like Chris patch? -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia