Let’s please set aside language. That’s quite the distraction. I know I like my sloppy colloquial ‘mericanisms. The only one that I can’t grok is the brexit reference — is this really a comparable situation?
Back to the topic at hand:
Rather selectively, and missing some key points of context IMO. The biggest context, of course, is that they were all made three-four months ago and the situation is now much different. I personally don’t find those quotes very relevant anymore — except to help us inform how to improve making another breaking release (which we won’t be doing in the near future).
I think you also misattributed some of the quotes; for example search for “what’s done is done” brings up this comment from Tim Holy: List of working packages on v. 1.0 - #51 by tim.holy
I encourage re-reading Tim’s entire post there. There definitely were trade-offs in how we released 0.7 and 1.0. There weee some obvious pain points, but there were some big advantages, too. Not only did packages migrate quite quickly, but releasing them simultaneously also meant that the two were versions as nearly identical as we could make them — and that was an essential property to ensure upgrading through 0.7 worked as seamlessly as possible.
At this point I feel like we’re largely on the other side of the rocky transition — where I find I’m feeling the benefits from the double release much more than I experience the detractions.
And so I’m left puzzling over the purpose here. What outcomes would you consider a success as a result of this post?