Breaking changes and mistakes are orthogonal to changes to defaults and changes for no clear reason. This separates stable software from perpetual “nightly” one

Breaking changes and mistakes are orthogonal to changes to defaults and changes for no clear reason. This separates stable software from perpetual “nightly” one. With Vim you can update through a couple major versions before even realizing it. For me it usually happens after system crashes (classic reinstall windows twice a decade) and the vim config and my habits just work with a new vim download. If neovim thought that something was broken, it was a very valid reason for a quick change. That’s how changes are made and I think most Vimers respect that. It was a proper community fork, almost a textbook example despite the initial buzz. Everyone got what they needed. But if you refuse to update, it’s a clear signal for ideological mismatch. The usual issue with picking pace, as I see it through years, is that there’s often no clear finish line where you switch to walking again. The pace just stays like that forever and people start to grow tired of changes they were happy about. Will that kill Neovim? I don’t think so. People who migrated to it (opposed to newcomers) were built for a change too and will probably “survive” all that. Is your method of dealing with it valid? In principle I agree, nothing wrong with that either.