thanks for starting to curate the feedback. However I take issue with the following:
It is envisioned binary compatibility can be achieved and offered by implementations via tooling that performs bytecode modification at either build-time, deploy-time or runtime. While there are open questions and considerations in this area, the primary goal of the discussion that must conclude is how do we move forward with future modifications to the APIs themselves.
Essentially you are suggesting that these discussion should exclude consideration of one of the most significant impacts of this name change. This is like voting for Brexit without have any idea what a Brexit would look like or how it can be implemented!
I never said exclude. We can talk about anything we like just as long as we also make sure to reach a decision on how to handle the namespace change in the time we have. As you point out, reaching a decision on that goal will logically involve a lot of groundwork.
Is that clearer and more in line with your thoughts?
-David
|
