I've never seen a definitive "No" to breaking changes.
We do breaking changes all the time. Did everyone already forget what the latest release (2.071.0) was about ? Revamping the import system, one of the core component of the language.
But it took a lot of time, and experience, to do it. It did deprecate patterns people were using for a long time before (e.g. inheriting imports), but its a (almost) consistent and principled implementation.

Way too often I see suggestions for a change with one (or more) of the following mistakes:
- Want to bring a specific construct in the language rather than achieve a goal
- Only consider the pros of such a proposal and completely skip any cons analysis
- Focus on one single change without considering how it could affect the whole language

But I've never seen someone willing to put the effort in a proposal to improve the language be turned away.
In fact, our review process for language change was recently updated as well to make it more accessible and save everyone's time. If it's not a commitment for continuous improvement of the language, I don't know what it is.