3 ms·

They have a policy to not talk about future features? What is there to hide/protect by witholding such information I wonder. I wont speculate, would like to hav

• Juliate 5y ago
  Don't know what their specific reasons are, but from the obvious "not talking about future features" benefits: 1. removes unnecessary induced expectations pressure from the outside (there's already enough of it), 2. allows to focus/arbitrate on your priorities depending on your resources. They very well may have an other higher priority item on their hands at this time. As for accepting contributed large contributed changes may be more complex overall (not just reviewing the code for correctness, but being confident it covers appropriately all desired cases and integrates appropriately with other plans - among which long term support, also managing contributors IP).
  • gtsop 5y ago
    Although this argument (1) seems reasonable at first, I'm not really convinced, because although it does introduce expectations for what's to come, at the same time it removes the expectations for what's not to come. The bye-bye points are more for the lack of transparency rather than the actual decision not to support/merge this. They could have very well given a nice explanation saying something along these lines: - Thanks for the contribution - We don't have the resources to properly support arm64, it's not just a matter of accepting this PR but also ongoing budget allocation for supporting this platform on our products - Here is a link to a donations page, if we get X money we can allocate resources for this feature