Chris Krycho

> I wonder if [Ember's node support policy](https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-cli/blob/master/docs/node-support.md) deserves to be revisited should this RFC be accepted? It was IMHO always a bit strange, as it allowed dropping support for...

@robbytx thanks for this write-up. I think you probably speak for a *lot* of people in the Ember community with it, and I think you summarized the possible downsides well...

@joukevandermaas I have a few thoughts, but first I want to reiterate something I've said over and over in this thread (as well as in the RFC itself): ***this proposal...

Ah, one other point: when you say that any given deprecation "generates churn with no benefit," I disagree very strongly. I think what you're saying is: it generates churn with...

@joukevandermaas thanks for elaborating there! A couple more thoughts in response. - > I'm knee-deep in trying to get from 3.x to 4.x right now.. and it's a lot of...

Thanks for ongoing discussion here—I’m reading and thinking about all of it, but intentionally not being reply-guy! If I see a particularly substantive new point, I’ll respond to that; otherwise,...

We made a bunch of progress on this again at this week's Framework Core meeting, mostly hammering down whether there are any hard blockers (not from anyone who's been present...

I think you mean #832? Here’s the thing: I’m writing that RFC no matter what. The key is knowing when it comes and how the deprecations are distributed. Also worth...

Heh, that comment came through on a delay and the others came in between. The Classic deprecations will almost certainly be targeting a mix of 6.0 and 7.0, though (with...

Glad we could clarify. And yeah, it’s actually the opposite of wanting to rush it in before a relatively soon v5! I’m waiting to have this one locked down so...